No. 19-7315
Andrew Wright v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-U.S.C-2255(f)(4) civil-procedure civil-rights criminal-procedure district-court due-process equitable-tolling habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel notice-of-appeal retained-counsel standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does equitable tolling automatically apply under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) where a defendant relies, to his detriment, on an oral order of a United States district court judge, directing outgoing retained counsel to file a notice of appeal, in Petitioner's presence, and then fails to do so?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does equitable tolling automatically apply under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) where a defendant relies, to his detriment, on an oral order of a United States district court judge, directing outgoing retained counsel to file a notice of appeal, in Petitioner’s presence, and then fails to do so? i
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2020-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2020)
Attorneys
Andrew Wright
Arza Feldman — Feldman & Feldman, Petitioner
Arza Feldman — Feldman & Feldman, Petitioner
United States, et al.
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent