United States v. Daniel Lee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Rule 60(b) motion was properly treated as a successive habeas petition and dismissed for failure to obtain authorization by court of appeals
• rejecting the movant’s contention that his “current Rule 60(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).