United States v. James Anthony Pruitt

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that because defendant's ineffectiveness claim under 2255 did not relate to the plea or plea agreement but related only to the alleged mishandling of sentencing the court did not need to decide whether a defendant could in fact waive a claim of ineffective assistance
• expressing doubt that 25 a waiver could bar claims relating to the validity of the waiver itself
• expressing doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim that counsel 4 erroneously induced a defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain
• \We doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's erroneously unprofessional inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain.\
• “[A] defendant may waive the statutory right to file a § 2255 petition challenging the length of his sentence [in a plea agreement].” (citing United States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).