Richard C. Gum v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Richard C. Gum v. United States

123 F.3d 946, 1997 WL 575804

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

Docket96-4134

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F.3d 946 (Richard C. Gum 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

Richard C. Gum v. United States, 123 F.3d 946, 1997 WL 575804 (6th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

*947 ORDER

Richard C. Gum, a pro se prisoner, petitions the court to rehear its order denying his application for a certificate of appealability in his appeal from a district court order denying his motion to vacate his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In an intervening decision issued in Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639 (6th Cir.1997), this court held that the certificate of appealability provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), do not apply to § 2255 motion to vacate cases that were pending in the district court on April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. Because Gum’s motion to vacate was filed in the district court on February 7, 1996, before the effective date of the AEDPA, the issuance of a certificate of appealability is unnecessary in this ease.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is hereby GRANTED. The clerk is directed to issue a briefing schedule in this case as soon as is practicable.

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

*947 ORDER

Richard C. Gum, a pro se prisoner, petitions the court to rehear its order denying his application for a certificate of appealability in his appeal from a district court order denying his motion to vacate his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In an intervening decision issued in Arredondo v. United States, 120 F.3d 639 (6th Cir.1997), this court held that the certificate of appealability provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), do not apply to § 2255 motion to vacate cases that were pending in the district court on April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. Because Gum’s motion to vacate was filed in the district court on February 7, 1996, before the effective date of the AEDPA, the issuance of a certificate of appealability is unnecessary in this ease.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is hereby GRANTED. The clerk is directed to issue a briefing schedule in this case as soon as is practicable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F.3d 946, 1997 WL 575804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-c-gum-v-united-states-ca6-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack