Question Presented (from Petition)
Point 1 Should a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and 60(d)(3) mixed motion initially be reviewed de novo, without requiring a certificate of Appealability
Point 2 — Are ignorred 2255 issues "procedural rulings that preclude a merits determination ." per Gonzales v. Crosby.
Point 3 - Were Petitioenr 's 2255 Grounds 2,4, and 13 ever evaluated on their merits.
Point 4 - Was it proper to treat the court issue, a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) fraud
Point 5 - Did the districta court error by treating Petitioner 's statute of limitations fraud claim as proceduraily barred.
Point 6 — Did the district court error by treating Petitioner's ex post facto sentencing argument as proceduraily barred.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and 60(d)(3) motion be reviewed de novo without a certificate of appealability?
2023-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2023.
2023-10-24
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2023-09-06
Supplemental brief of petitioner David A. Diehl filed. (Distributed)
2023-07-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-19
Reply of petitioner David A. Diehl filed. (Distributed)
2023-07-07
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-05-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 7, 2023.
2023-05-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 7, 2023 to July 7, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-05-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 7, 2023.
2023-05-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 8, 2023 to June 7, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-04-06
Response Requested. (Due May 8, 2023)
2023-03-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
2023-03-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 17, 2023)