No. 22-7023
Maria Orosco v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 appointed-counsel civil-rights due-process federal-habeas habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel notice-of-appeal procedural-default timely-filing
Latest Conference:
2023-04-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
Roe v. Glover v. Idaho, 126 S.Ct.
Should my writ Certiorari be granted inasmuch as my appointed attorney failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal for any petition of 28 U.S.C.§ 2255?
But for my attorney not filing a timely Notice of Appeal and subsequent stay of 28 U.S.C.§ 2255, they were dismissed due to failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should my writ of certiorari be granted when my appointed attorney failed to file a timely notice of appeal?
Docket Entries
2023-04-24
Petition DENIED.
2023-04-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023.
2023-03-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-03-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 17, 2023)
Attorneys
Maria Orosco
Maria Del Rosario Orosco — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent