United States v. William Bokun

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that habeas petitioner must show “an error of law or fact that constitutes ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice’” (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962))
• noting that the subjective intent of the sentencing judge does not constitute a fundamental defect allowing collateral review
• holding that habeas petitioner must show \an error of law or fact that constitutes 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice' \ (quoting Hill v. United States , 368 U.S. 424 , 428, 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) )
• noting that relief under section 2255 is available “only for a constitutional error, a lack of jurisdiction in the sentencing court, or an error of law or fact that constitutes a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice”
• explaining a proper objection is one “that is sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute”
• “Petitioner’s 240-month sentences on Counts One and Two . . . are neither violative of law nor suggestive of any miscarriage of justice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).