United States v. Levi

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Levi

111 F.3d 955, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 196, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9886, 1997 WL 222347

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1997

DocketNos. 96-3083, 96-5200

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 111 F.3d 955 (United States v. Levi) 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

United States v. Levi, 111 F.3d 955, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 196, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9886, 1997 WL 222347 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

No. 96-3083 presents the threshold question whether the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) apply to proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No. 96-5200 presents the same question with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We publish this opinion in order to express agreement with our sister circuits, which have uniformly held the PLRA inapplicable to such proceedings. See Smith v. Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1129-31 (4th Cir.1997); Anderson v. Singletary, 111 F.3d 801 (11th Cir.1997); United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 742-45 (10th Cir.1997); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Cole, 101 F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir.1996); Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752, 755-56 (3d Cir.1996); Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 855-56 (7th Cir.1996); Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 678 (2d Cir.1996).

We need not publish the disposition of the merits of appellants’ appeals, which will issue in separate orders.

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

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

No. 96-3083 presents the threshold question whether the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) apply to proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No. 96-5200 presents the same question with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We publish this opinion in order to express agreement with our sister circuits, which have uniformly held the PLRA inapplicable to such proceedings. See Smith v. Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1129-31 (4th Cir.1997); Anderson v. Singletary, 111 F.3d 801 (11th Cir.1997); United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 742-45 (10th Cir.1997); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Cole, 101 F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir.1996); Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752, 755-56 (3d Cir.1996); Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 855-56 (7th Cir.1996); Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 678 (2d Cir.1996).

We need not publish the disposition of the merits of appellants’ appeals, which will issue in separate orders.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F.3d 955, 324 U.S. App. D.C. 196, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9886, 1997 WL 222347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-levi-cadc-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack