United States v. Scott A. Warner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s arguments were “previously considered and disposed of” on direct appeal and, “[t]herefore, [the defendant] may not raise these issues under § 2255”
• holding that the defendant’s arguments were “previously considered and disposed of” on direct appeal and, “[t]herefore, [the defendant] may not raise these issues under § 2255”
• finding that Rule 32(c)(3)(D) cannot provide a district court with jurisdiction to hear challenges to a presentence report after it has imposed sentence
• holding § 2255 motions not available to test legality of matters that should have been raised on direct appeal
• stating that where the court of appeals has previously considered and disposed of issues on direct appeal, a defendant may not raise these issues under § 2255
• stating that where the court of appeals has previously considered and disposed of issues on direct appeal, a defendant may not raise these issues under § 2255

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).