United States v. Paul Winestock, Jr.

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 has no discretion to rule on a Rule 60(b) motion that is functionally equivalent to a successive” § 2255 motion
• holding that district court must examine motions to reconsider in collateral review cases to determine whether they are tantamount to successive applications
• holding that in the context of a motion under § 2255, “[i]n the absence of pre-filing authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an application containing abusive or repetitive claims”
• stating that district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive application filed without authorization
• holding that a district court must treat a Rule 60(b
• stating that “a motion directly attacking the prisoner’s conviction or sentence will usually amount to a successive application”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).