Lawrence Windford Price v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Lawrence Windford Price v. United States

128 F.3d 989, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32200, 1997 WL 713675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1997

Docket96-4135

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F.3d 989 (Lawrence Windford Price v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence Windford Price v. United States, 128 F.3d 989, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32200, 1997 WL 713675 (6th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Lawrence Windford Price petitions for rehearing of this court’s order entered on May 29, 1997 That order denied Price’s application for a certificate of appealability so that he might appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have clarified that a certificate of appealability is not needed in this case because the underlying § 2255 motion to vacate was filed in the district court on December 5, 1995, before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, — U.S.-,-, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997), Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639, 640 (6th Cir. 1997). These decisions supersede this court’s prior ruling denying the petitioner a certificate of appealability. Price may now raise on appeal any argument relevant to any claim that was properly asserted in the district court.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted. The clerk is directed to issue a briefing schedule

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

ORDER

Lawrence Windford Price petitions for rehearing of this court’s order entered on May 29, 1997 That order denied Price’s application for a certificate of appealability so that he might appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have clarified that a certificate of appealability is not needed in this case because the underlying § 2255 motion to vacate was filed in the district court on December 5, 1995, before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, — U.S.-,-, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997), Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639, 640 (6th Cir. 1997). These decisions supersede this court’s prior ruling denying the petitioner a certificate of appealability. Price may now raise on appeal any argument relevant to any claim that was properly asserted in the district court.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted. The clerk is directed to issue a briefing schedule

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F.3d 989, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32200, 1997 WL 713675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-windford-price-v-united-states-ca6-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack