United States v. McGinley

8 F. App'x 706
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 19, 2001
DocketNo. 00-35677; D.C. Nos. CV-98-6349-MRH, CR-91-60012-MRH
StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. App'x 706 (United States v. McGinley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. McGinley, 8 F. App'x 706 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Jonathan Michael McGinley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion on the ground that it was not filed within the one-year limitation period specified in § 2255. The district court issued a certificate of appealability as to claims of sentencing error and an unconstitutional statute.

The government now concedes that the § 2255 motion was timely filed within a year after the Supreme Court denied certiorari and recommends remand to the district court for hearing on the merits.

The district court’s order denying the motion is therefore VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F. App'x 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mcginley-ca9-2001.