Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hurd v. Romeo

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Kelly

    Criminal No. 07-163 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Applying Liotard to habeas petitioner's double jeopardy argument where charges involved same conspiracy statute

    Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519; 520 (1972); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). However, even a pro se plaintiff must be able to prove a "set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."

  2. Adams v. U.S.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-3398 (MLC) (D.N.J. May. 29, 2007)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that the Rule 11 colloquy "eliminates any arguable prejudice from an earlier estimate by counsel"

    Nevertheless, while it is by no means clear that given the strong evidence against him, the petitioner would have elected to go to trial rather than plead guilty, we will construe his pro se pleading liberally. Boag v. MacDougal, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). Therefore, we will examine the merits of petitioner's claim despite his failure to plead the type of "prejudice" required under Hill.

  3. Doe v. U.S.

    112 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D.N.J. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that defendant could not establish prejudice prong ofStrickland, because court would not have granted downward departure under § 5K2.0 for rehabilitative efforts that were not extraordinary

    In the interest of justice, the Court will read this pro se petition liberally. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 44 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1989); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). 1. The Supreme Court's Holding inApprendi v. New Jersey

  4. Mayes v. U.S.

    93 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Tenn. 2000)   Cited 73 times

    Nevertheless, while it is by no means clear that given the strong evidence against him petitioner would have elected to go to trial rather than plead guilty, the Court will construe his pro se pleading liberally. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 701, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). Therefore, we will examine the merits of petitioner's claim despite his failure to plead the "prejudice" required under Hill.

  5. Sepulveda v. U.S.

    69 F. Supp. 2d 633 (D.N.J. 1999)   Cited 54 times
    Concluding that the court would not hold an evidentiary hearing where petitioner was not entitled to relief on the claims asserted

    Nevertheless, while it is by no means clear that given the strong evidence against him petitioner would have elected to go to trial rather than plead guilty, we will construe his pro se pleading liberally. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). Therefore, we will examine the merits of petitioner's claim despite his failure to plead the "prejudice" required under Hill.

  6. Duarte v. Hurley

    43 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 1999)   Cited 39 times
    In Duarte v. Hurley, 43 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 1999), United States District Judge Alfred J. Wolin determined that the petitioner, who was serving a federal sentence for bank robbery, was "in custody" under § 2254 to challenge a consecutive 10-year New Jersey sentence, even though New Jersey had not lodged a detainer.

    In the interest of justice, the Court will read this pro se petition liberally. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 44 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1989); Hurd v. Romeo, 752 F.2d 68, 70 (3d Cir. 1985). Subject Matter Jurisdiction