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.
- Argued 04/11/2006
- Decided 11/06/2006
- Published 11/06/2006
- SYKES, Circuit Judge., Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
- United States Seventh Circuit
- 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.