· 12/19/2000
United States v. Joan M. Noske
Citations
- 235 F.3d 405
- 86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7304
- 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 32191
- 2000 WL 1847614
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that § 2255 was the appropriate means for movant to challenge her sentence, and that a writ of coram nobis could not be used to circumvent “the second or successive provisions of § 2255”
- explaining that § 2255 was the appropriate means for movant to challenge her sentence, and that a writ of coram nobis could not be used to circumvent “the second or successive provisions of § 2255”
- explaining that § 2255 was the appropriate means for movant to challenge her sentence, and that a writ of coram nobis could not be used to circumvent “the second or successive provisions of § 2255”
- explaining that § 2255 was the appropriate means for movant to challenge her sentence, and that a writ of coram nobis could not be used to circumvent “the second or successive provisions of § 2255”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McMillian, Fagg, Murphy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.