United States v. Donathan Wayne Hadden

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a challenge to “whether the new sentence was in conformity with the Constitution or Sentencing Guidelines” does not require a COA
• holding that when “petitioner seeks to appeal matters relating to the propriety of the relief granted, he is appealing a new criminal sentence and therefore need not comply with [the] COA requirement [in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2012)]”
• holding that an order resentencing a § 2255 petitioner is “part of the prisoner’s criminal case” for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, and is thus directly appealable under §§ 1291 and 3742 without the certificate of appealability that 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B
• determining that the district court below had corrected the sentence in part because it “did not conduct any of the procedures that would have been required at a full-blown sentencing”
• holding that the district court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing before vacating one count of a three-count 11 Case: 17-11668 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 12 of 16 conviction and reducing the total sentence by the term of imprisonment for that count
• \It is equally clear that by using the different terms-'correct' and 'resentence'- § 2255 refers to different concepts.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).