King v. Nash

Second Circuit

King v. Nash

68 F. App'x 267

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2003

DocketDocket No. 02-2108

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 F. App'x 267 (King v. Nash) 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

King v. Nash, 68 F. App'x 267 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bernard King appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.) dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

We recently held that the rule in Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Coleman v. United States, 329 F.3d 77, 88-90 (2d Cir. 2003). Consequently, confining King’s Apprendi challenge to a § 2255 motion raises no serious constitutional question requiring recourse to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Love v. Menifee, 333 F.3d 69, 74 (2d Cir. 2003). The district court properly construed King’s habeas petition as a second and successive § 2255 petition, and appropriately dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bernard King appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.) dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

We recently held that the rule in Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Coleman v. United States, 329 F.3d 77, 88-90 (2d Cir. 2003). Consequently, confining King’s Apprendi challenge to a § 2255 motion raises no serious constitutional question requiring recourse to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Love v. Menifee, 333 F.3d 69, 74 (2d Cir. 2003). The district court properly construed King’s habeas petition as a second and successive § 2255 petition, and appropriately dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 F. App'x 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-nash-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack