United States v. Saro, Carlos

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s conclusion that a § 2255 motion was time-barred because of malfeasance by a prisoner’s attorney 10 does not constitute extraordinary circumstances bringing the doctrine of equitable tolling into play
• abuse of discretion but de novo if district court ruled as a matter of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).