United States v. Ludevina Ayala Cervantes

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the district court was not required to consider affidavits submitted after the government responded to habeas motion
• noting that an evidentiary hearing is warranted only “[i]f the [Appellants] produce[] independent indicia of the likely merit of [their] allegations”
• noting that an evidentiary hearing is warranted only “[i]f the [Appellants] produce[] independent indicia of the likely merit of [their] allegations”
• explaining that a petitioner typically meets this standard by providing “one or more affidavits from reliable third parties”
• explaining that defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing related to constitutionality of his prosecution “only if the existing record proves the likely merit of [his] specific allegations”
• explaining that defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing related to constitutionality of his prosecution ″only if the existing record proves the likely merit of [his] specific allegations″

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).