§2255
131 cases·15 followed·4 questioned·1 limited·64 overruled·47 cited—11% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §2255
Statute text not available for this section.
131 Citing Cases
2255 (2006) as to his conviction for false statements on his 2000 tax return. The District Court for the Southern District ofMississippi denied that reliefin 2010. See United States v. Adams, No. 3:07cr31-DPJ-LRA, 2010 WL 55937 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 4, 2010). Mr. Adams was released from prison in 2011. -4- [*4] tried to set up a meeting, Mr. Adams
2255, urging that the tax-loss calculation underly- ing their sentences was erroneous. In support ofthat contention, they pointed to IRS spreadsheets, ofwhich they had recently become aware, indicating that they could be entitled to substantial additional deductions against their 2003-2006 4In the closing agreement petitioners conceded liabili
2255, urging that the tax-loss calculation underly- ing their sentences was erroneous. In support ofthat contention, they pointed to IRS spreadsheets, ofwhich they had recently become aware, indicating that they could be entitled to substantial additional deductions against their 2003-2006 4In the closing agreement petitioners conceded liabili
2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, but the district court denied that motion, United States v. Beam, 2016 WL 1557599 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2016), and the Third Circuit denied his request for a certificate ofappealability, United States v. Beam, No. 16-2216 (3d Cir. Sept. 15, 2016). B. Civil Tax Examination Petitioner has resided
Again, petitioner was unsuccessful. McAuliffe v. United States, 514 F. App'x 542 (6th Cir. 2013). Petitioner also challenged his Federal conviction while resisting professional discipline by the State ofOhio. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court 4 The indictment included six counts: two counts ofmail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1
2255 (2006) to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence) . The IRS's notice of deficiency On July 17, 2007, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. Anderson for the years 1995 through 1999, more than six and a half years after he had filed the latest of his returns for those years . The adjustments in the notice of deficiency were derived
2255 was denied by the District Court in August 1998, and the Court of Appeals declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Appeals filed by petitioner from other adverse orders of the District Court were equally unsuccessful on appeal. United States v. Minneman, 87 AFTR 2d 2001-1920 (7th Cir. 2001).3 E. The Notice of Deficiency In May 19
section 2255 (1994). That motion was denied on January 17, 1995. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of relief by the District Court. See United States v. Taylor, 70 F.3d 121 (9th - 6 - Cir. 1995). Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari. Se
section 2255 (1994). That motion was denied on January 17, 1995. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of relief by the District Court. See United States v. Taylor, 70 F.3d 121 (9th Cir. 1995). Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari. See Taylo
section 2255 (1994). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the motion. Dr. Cole further contends that, on July 25, 1994, he filed an appeal that he claims was not docketed until November 6, 1994. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely on December 30, 1994. He appealed the dis
The District Court denied petitioner's motion on March 31, 1994. Petitioner appealed the District Court's judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed April 21, 1995, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. On June 14, 1995, the
On July 29, 1993, U.S. District Judge Schwartz entered an Order and Reasons denying petitioner's motion. Petitioner appealed the District Court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 3, 1994, the Court of Appeals filed its opinion affirming the District Court's denial of pe