United States v. Hicks, Eric A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Section 2255 motion “may be amended under the terms set by Rule 15(a)” of the Federal Rules 5 of Civil Procedure
• concluding that, where an amended complaint “amplif[ies] the facts already alleged,” the amended complaint relates back to the initial complaint
• holding that although Rule 15(c) could be read to mean that the relevant “occurrence” was petitioner’s trial and sentencing, the result of that interpretation would be that “virtually any purported amendment will relate back”
• holding that a claim that the government failed to prove the quantity of drugs at trial did not relate back to a timely-filed claim that the government’s willingness to grant leniency in exchange for testimony tainted the petitioner’s trial
• holding that a claim that the government failed to prove the quantity of drugs at trial did not relate back to a timely-filed claim that the government's willingness to grant leniency in exchange for testimony tainted the petitioner's trial
• stating that “amendments that expand upon or clarify facts previously alleged will typically relate back”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).