United States v. Edison Jordan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts are obligated to “look behind the label” of pro se inmate filings to determine whether they are cognizable under another remedial statutory framework
• stating that Congress “explicitly foreclosed [the Rule 35(a)] route for obtaining judicial review of an allegedly illegal sentence” at any time
• stating that Congress “explicitly foreclosed [the Rule 3 5 (a)] route for obtaining judicial review of an allegedly illegal sentence” at any time
• explaining that courts must look behind pro se party’s label of a motion to determine whether the motion is cognizable under a different remedial framework
• observing that “proceedings under § 2255 are not proceedings in the original criminal prosecution; rather, the filing of a motion pursuant to § 2255 is akin to initiating an independent civil suit”
• noting that “‘where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully in the disparate inclusion or exclusion’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).