United States Seventh Circuit

Reset A A Font size: Print

Poe v. US, 04-3697

Denial of a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion as untimely is affirmed where the motion came over a year after the Supreme Court decision in Richardson v. US, 526 U.S. 816, 824 (1999). Petitioner's arguments that an improper but timely habeas petition should have been treated as a 2255 motion, and that the "unique circumstances" doctrine should apply, do not have support in established case law.

Appellate Information

  • Argued 04/11/2006
  • Decided 11/06/2006
  • Published 11/06/2006

Judges

  • SYKES, Circuit Judge., Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Court

  • United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Robert J. Palmer, Mishawaka, IN, for Petitioner-Appellant.

  • For Appellees:
  • Michael Jude Quinley, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Copied to clipboard