No. 19-6109
James Abraham Mata v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 district-court-judgment federal-prisoner federal-statutory-provisions habeas-corpus record-silence retroactive-decision second-or-successive-motion statutory-provision successive-motion unconstitutional unconstitutional-provision unconstitutional-statute
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-11-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
When seeking relief under a retroactive decision invalidating a federal statutory provision as unconstitutional, what must a federal prisoner show in a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when the record is silent as to whether the district court based its original judgment on the invalidated provision?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When seeking relief under a retroactive decision invalidating a federal statutory provision as unconstitutional, what must a federal prisoner show in a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when the record is silent as to whether the district court based its original judgment on the invalidated provision?
Docket Entries
2019-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-09-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 31, 2019)
Attorneys
James Mata
Kristin L. Davidson — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent