United States v. Richard Pineda

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that pro se litigants are still required to provide sufficient facts in support of their claims, and even under the rule of liberal construction “mere conclusory allegations on critical issues are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”
• noting that “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”
• noting that although pro se § 2255 motions are construed liberally, even under the rule of liberal construction, “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”
• noting that although pro se § 2255 motions are construed liberally, even under the rule of liberal construction, “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”
• noting that although pro se § 2255 motions are construed liberally, even under the rule of liberal construction, “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”
• noting that although pro se § 2255 motions are construed liberally, even under the rule of liberal construction, “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).