Dale Hendrickson v. Bureau of Prisons, Ray Holt, Warden

Second Circuit

Dale Hendrickson v. Bureau of Prisons, Ray Holt, Warden

218 F.3d 197, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15785, 2000 WL 900173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2000

Docket00-2240

StatusPublished

This text of 218 F.3d 197 (Dale Hendrickson v. Bureau of Prisons, Ray Holt, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dale Hendrickson v. Bureau of Prisons, Ray Holt, Warden, 218 F.3d 197, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15785, 2000 WL 900173 (2d Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has filed, pro se, a motion for a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the order of the district court (1) dismissing as untimely his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his judgment of conviction, and (2) denying his motion for recusal of the district judge. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is granted, in part, for the following limited purpose. So much of the district court’s order as denied petitioner’s motion to set aside the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the court to inform petitioner that his motion is to be construed as a motion pursuant to § 2255, and to give petitioner an opportunity to show why that motion is not barred by time limits imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (Supp. Ill 1997); Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116 (2d Cir.1999), cert.

granted, ■— U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1669, 146

L.Ed.2d 479 (2000). . -

In all other respects, the motion for a certificate of appealability is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has filed, pro se, a motion for a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the order of the district court (1) dismissing as untimely his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his judgment of conviction, and (2) denying his motion for recusal of the district judge. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is granted, in part, for the following limited purpose. So much of the district court’s order as denied petitioner’s motion to set aside the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the court to inform petitioner that his motion is to be construed as a motion pursuant to § 2255, and to give petitioner an opportunity to show why that motion is not barred by time limits imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (Supp. Ill 1997); Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116 (2d Cir.1999), cert.

granted, ■— U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1669, 146

L.Ed.2d 479 (2000). . -

In all other respects, the motion for a certificate of appealability is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.3d 197, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15785, 2000 WL 900173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-hendrickson-v-bureau-of-prisons-ray-holt-warden-ca2-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack