United States v. Joe Clinton Segler

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] district court's technical application of the Guidelines\ is not\cognizable under § 2255\
• holding that Congress “meant to limit the types of claims cognizable under § 2255 to claims relating to unlawful custody”
• holding that\[a] district court's technical application of the Guidelines\ is not\cognizable under § 2255\
• explaining “Congress . . . meant to limit the types of claims cognizable under § 2255 to claims relating to unlawful custody”
• “A district court’s technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2255.”
• “A district court’s technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2255”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).