Question Presented (from Petition)
If the § 2255 pleadings raised issues of fact, should those have been resolved by an evidentiary hearing?
II. Was the lack of an evidentiary hearing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)?
III. Did the pleadings raise material issues of fact which if true, would entitle Bartunek to habeas relief?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether unresolved factual issues in a § 2255 motion warrant an evidentiary hearing and potential habeas relief
Docket Entries
2024-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-09-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 6, 2024)
Attorneys
Gregory Bartunek
Gregory Bartunek — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent