§ 2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/oralargs/oaFrame.html
enter court case, no dash
Oral Arguement for 11-1462 or 11-1463 No dashes
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/oralargs/oaFrame.html


http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/webcal/oct11stp.pdf full report

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM
BEFORE JUDGES RILEY, LOKEN, BENTON
JMB
1 11-1462 ND United States v. Michael Reed
11-1463 ND United States v. Gregory Davis 15
2 11-1046 MN Katia Guimaraes v. Supervalu 15
3 11-1473 MN Karen Chambers v. The Travelers
Companies 15
4 11-1789 MN BP Group v. David Kloeber, Jr. 15
5 10-3477 MN United States v. Gregg Pickar

How Current is This?


(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

(b) Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.

(c) A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.

(d) An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.

(e) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of—
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(g) Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act, in all proceedings brought under this section, and any subsequent proceedings on review, the court may appoint counsel, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under this section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.

(h) A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain—
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.



Prev | Next

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.





U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Truth_Research/Oral%20Arguement%20for%2011-1462%20or%2011-1463%20No%20dashes
enter court case, no dash
Oral Arguement for 11-1462 or 11-1463 No dashes
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/oralargs/oaFrame.html

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/webcal/oct11stp.pdf full report

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM
BEFORE JUDGES RILEY, LOKEN, BENTON
JMB
1 11-1462 ND United States v. Michael Reed
11-1463 ND United States v. Gregory Davis 15
2 11-1046 MN Katia Guimaraes v. Supervalu 15
3 11-1473 MN Karen Chambers v. The Travelers
Companies 15
4 11-1789 MN BP Group v. David Kloeber, Jr. 15
5 10-3477 MN United States v. Gregg Pickar




Declarations of independence: encyclopedia of American autonomous ... - Page 86







books.google.com James L. Erwin - 2007 - 240 pages - Google eBook - Preview



The Little Shell Pembina Band is a branch of the Chippewa tribe. During the Plains Wars of the nineteenth century, the band fled their home in North Dakota and found refuge in Montana. Their chief Little Shell, from whom the band took ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



Hearings







books.google.com United States, United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary, Congress - 1955 - Snippet view



Mr. Hart, in your experience as an Indian atfairs commissioner for the State of North Dakota, do you have any ... the State of Montana are descendants of Chief Little Shell's band of Chippewa Indians, who never participated in a treaty; ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



Condition of Indians in the United States: Hearings before the ...: Volume 2







books.google.com United States. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs - 1936 - Snippet view



Cordially yours, NP LA FRAMBOISE, Secretary to Chief, Little Shell Rand. BELCOURT, N. DAK., March 18, 1936. A bill, S. 1786 Referring to the claims of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota : Thus I do hereby give ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



Tribal Perspectives on American History, Vol. II: Great Plains – ...







books.google.com Sally Thompson, Happy Avery, Kim Lugthart, Elizabeth Sperry - Preview



... Indians Russell Boham – Little Shell Chippewa There was another treaty that was about to be negotiated in North Dakota ... And the reason that the Little Shell Tribe is the Little Shell Tribe is the name is taken after Chief Little ...


Add to My Library▼



American Indian nations: yesterday, today, and tomorrow - Page 30







books.google.com George P. Horse Capture, Duane Champagne, Chandler C. Jackson - 2007 - 322 pages - Google eBook - Preview



Little Shell and the others returned to North Dakota and were informed that they were no longer recognized by the government ... had disappeared and traditional lifestyles came to an end for the Chippewa who followed Chief Little Shell. ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



North Dakota history: Volumes 71-72







books.google.com State Historical Society of North Dakota - 2005 - Snippet view



Charles Green's own oral account of the event, conveyed by translator Roger St. Pierre in a 1906 letter to Libby, states that "Little Shell was chief at the time of this hunt." This was probably the second of three Chippewa chiefs of ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



Native Americans: an encyclopedia of history, culture, and peoples: Volume 1 - Page 493







books.google.com Barry Pritzker - 1998 - 868 pages - Google eBook - Preview



In 1882, the United States recognized the Turtle Mountain Band's claim to 20 townships in north- central North Dakota. Two years later, however, it decided that the reservation was too large. The Little Shell Band, away hunting buffalo ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



The Province and the States: Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, ... - Page 384







books.google.comWeston Arthur Goodspeed - 1904 - Free Google eBook - Read



Two townships had been set apart in 1884, as a reservation for Chief Little Shell's band, but the tract had never been made the subject of a treaty. Consequently the Indians still claimed all the land in the Turtle Mountain country, ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



The North Dakota quarterly: Volume 64, Issues 3-4







books.google.com University of North Dakota - 1997 - Snippet view



Had Hemingway wished to create yet another novel where the chief protagonist also writes the novel sometime after the ... The parabolic trajectory of the mortar or artillery shell that slammed into the ground, shattering into shrapnel, ...


More editions Add to My Library▼



Montana's Indians: yesterday and today - Page 95







books.google.com William L. Bryan - 1996 - 143 pages - Preview



... descendents of the Pimbina Chippewa from the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota. These people, with some mixed blood of Metis and Cree, left the reservation in 1892 to hunt in Montana under their chief, Thomas Little Shell. ...


More editions Add to My Library▼