Thomas v. Crosby, No. 01-11314.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Black |
| Citation | 371 F.3d 782 |
| Parties | James Dwight THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James CROSBY, Secretary for the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-11314. |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
388 practice notes
-
United States v. Lamonds, Case No. 5:07cr48/RS
...(3) exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 811 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000). "Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 'is reserved for transgressio......
-
Samak v. Warden, No. 13–12161
...of transporting court officials and other necessary witnesses to the district of confinement.”); [766 F.3d 1279]Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 806 (11th Cir.2004) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring) (discussing this “exclusivity provision” for federal prisoners, which “prevent[s] convicted......
-
United States v. Johnson, Case No.: 3:07cr77/MCR
...(3) exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 811 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000). "Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 'is reserved for transgressio......
-
Prevatte v. French, Civil Action No. 1:02-CV-1709-RWS.
...But, whether a rule applies retroactively is a threshold question, which the Court has discretion to raise sua sponte. Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 796 (11th Cir.2004); Housel v. Head, 238 F.3d 1289, 1297 (11th Cir.2001); see also Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 389, 114 S.Ct. 948, 127 ......
Request a trial to view additional results
385 cases
-
Harris v. Gordy, Civil Action Number: 5:15-cv-01112-VEH-JEO
...(emphasis in Medberry)). And, where § 2254 governs a habeas petition, that carries certain "attendant restrictions," Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 2004), codified in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA"). Among ......
-
United States v. Lamonds, Case No. 5:07cr48/RS
...(3) exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 811 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000). "Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 'is reserved for transgressio......
-
In re Wright, No. 15–281
...by choosing a different label for his petition,” just as Wright seeks to do in this case. Id. at 1061 ; see also Thomas v. Crosby , 371 F.3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004) (“If § 2254 were not a restriction on § 2241's authority ... then § 2254 ... would be a complete dead letter, because no sta......
-
Samak v. Warden, No. 13–12161
...of transporting court officials and other necessary witnesses to the district of confinement.”); [766 F.3d 1279]Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 806 (11th Cir.2004) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring) (discussing this “exclusivity provision” for federal prisoners, which “prevent[s] convicted......
Request a trial to view additional results