United States v. Garland Jeffers

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Rule 35(a) motion was attack to underlying conviction and “beyond the power of the court to address under Rule 35(a)”
• “[Although denominated as a challenge to his sentence, [the Rule 35(a) motion] was actually an attack upon the underlying ... conviction. As such, it was beyond the power of the court to address under Rule 35(a).”
• reaffirming the continuing vitality of Canino

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).