No. 22-5596
Roberta Ronique Bell v. Warden, FCI Dublin
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: §-2241-relief actual-innocence co-conspirator due-process evidentiary-hearing habeas-corpus procedural-due-process separate-proceedings
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-10-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
WHETHER THE DENIAL OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN SUPPORT OF § 2241 RELIEF CAN BE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED BY AN ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR FROM SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY, THEREBY DENYING HER A SIMILAR FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER THE DENIAL OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN SUPPORT OF § 2241 RELIEF CAN BE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED BY AN ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR FROM SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY, THEREBY DENYING HER A SIMILAR FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH HER ACTUAL INNOCENCE? ul
Docket Entries
2022-10-11
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-20
Waiver of right of respondent Warden, FCI Dublin to respond filed.
2022-09-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 17, 2022)
Attorneys
Roberta Bell
Edward J. Rymsza III — Miele & Rymsza, P.C., Petitioner
Edward J. Rymsza III — Miele & Rymsza, P.C., Petitioner
Warden, FCI Dublin
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent