United States Eighth Circuit

In defendant's appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely, the order is affirmed in part where most of the claims in defendant's amended motion did not arise from the same operative facts as the allegations made in the original motion. However, the order is reversed in part where the fact that defendant's amended motion identified the legal basis of the objectionable nature of certain testimony as being too speculative did not change its factual similarity to defendant's original motion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/29/2010
• Published 07/29/2010

Judges

• David R. Hansen

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel