McConico v. U.S. Congress

D.C. Circuit

McConico v. U.S. Congress

208 F. App'x 10

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 06-5123

StatusPublished

This text of 208 F. App'x 10 (McConico v. U.S. Congress) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McConico v. U.S. Congress, 208 F. App'x 10 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 23, 2006 [11]*11be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action on the ground that the Supreme Court has held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions “do not amount to a ‘suspension’ of the writ contrary to Article I, § 9.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 23, 2006 [11]*11be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action on the ground that the Supreme Court has held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions “do not amount to a ‘suspension’ of the writ contrary to Article I, § 9.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F. App'x 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconico-v-us-congress-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack