Murks v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Murks v. United States

52 F. App'x 821

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 2002

DocketNo. 01-5688

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 F. App'x 821 (Murks 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

Murks v. United States, 52 F. App'x 821 (6th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Pro se federal prisoner Ricky Murks appeals a district court judgment that denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The [822]*822parties have expressly waived oral argument pursuant to Rule 34(j)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and we agree that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

We affirm the district court’s judgment. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), may not be applied retroactively in an initial § 2255 motion. Goode v. United States, 305 F.3d 378, - slip op. at 5 (6th Cir.2002).

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

ORDER

Pro se federal prisoner Ricky Murks appeals a district court judgment that denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The [822]*822parties have expressly waived oral argument pursuant to Rule 34(j)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and we agree that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

We affirm the district court’s judgment. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), may not be applied retroactively in an initial § 2255 motion. Goode v. United States, 305 F.3d 378, - slip op. at 5 (6th Cir.2002).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F. App'x 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murks-v-united-states-ca6-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack