United States Eleventh Circuit

Because defendant was not convicted of a nonexistent offense, and thus, did not meet the second prong of the Wofford test, his Richardson claim does not fall within the purview of 28 U.S.C. section 2255's savings clause.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/14/2003
• Published 04/15/2003

Judges

• DUBINA, Circuit Judge:, Before DUBINA, RONEY and COX, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Sharon Samek (Court-Appointed), Tampa, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Todd B. Grandy, Tamra Phipps, Tampa, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.