McCormick v. Butler

38 Citing cases

  1. Ocampo v. Hemmingway

    2:19-CV-12819 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 28, 2022)

    If a petitioner proves these elements, he or she has shown that a § 2255 motion is otherwise “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of detention and may proceed through the savings clause and employ § 2241. See McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Hill).

  2. Dentley v. Bowers

    Civ. 2:22-cv-02863-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 25, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 75556 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Section 2255 is the primary avenue for relief for federal prisoners protesting the legality of their sentence, while § 2241 is appropriate for claims challenging the execution or manner in which the sentence is served.”); McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2020) (“When a federal prisoner collaterally attacks the validity of his sentence, rather than the conditions of his confinement, he must ordinarily proceed under § 2255, not § 2241.”).

  3. Spotts v. Childress

    2:21-cv-2520-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2023)

    (“Section 2255 is the primary avenue for relief for federal prisoners protesting the legality of their sentence, while § 2241 is appropriate for claims challenging the execution or manner in which the sentence is served.”); McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2020) (“When a federal prisoner collaterally attacks the validity of his sentence, rather than the conditions of his confinement, he must ordinarily proceed under § 2255, not § 2241.”)

  4. Johnson v. United States

    3:22-CV-119-KAC-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 1, 2023)

    The Court liberally construes a pro se Section 2255 petition. See McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2020). “But the liberal-construction rule does not ‘abrogate basic pleading essentials,' such as the requirement that a § 2255 petitioner state the factual bases underpinning every claim for relief.” Jimenez v. United States, No. 21-5201, 2022 WL 2610337, at *3

  5. Cade v. Yates

    Case No. 2:20-cv-00200 JTK (E.D. Ark. May. 12, 2021)

    ) In deciding Mathis is a new retroactive rule of statutory interpretation, the Sixth Circuit, applying Hill v. Masters, agreed with the parties that there was no dispute Mathis was a retroactive case of statutory interpretation. See McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 526 (6th Cir. 2020); Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d at 595, 599-600 (holding that, when the habeas petition attacks a sentence rather than a conviction, the test is not whether the defendant is actually innocent but rather whether "the misapplied sentence presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a miscarriage of justice or fundamental defect," and that a now erroneous career-offender sentence imposed under the mandatory guidelines satisfies this test). The Seventh Circuit assumed without deciding Mathis was retroactive because the government conceded as much.

  6. Watford v. Ormond

    No. 20-6049 (6th Cir. Oct. 19, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    When the district court denies a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, our review is de novo. McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2020). And when the district court concludes that a crime qualifies as a predicate offense for the career-offender designation under the Guidelines, our review is also de novo.

  7. Wheeler v. Williams

    No. 20-4037 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    We review de novo a district court's judgment denying a § 2241 petition. McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2020).

  8. Dantzler v. Rewerts

    No. 20-1059 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    We recognize that appellants may cite legal authority not cited below for arguments that have been made below, see Reeser v. Henry Ford Hosp., 695 Fed.Appx. 876, 882 (6th Cir. 2017), point out logical or policy-driven fallacies in the district court's opinion, or generally reason in ways that are more compelling than what was presented below, without running into the rule that arguments not raised below are forfeited. We may also take into account that defendant proceeded pro se below, see McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2020), although his filing was considerably more lawyerlike than some briefs by counsel that we see. But the new arguments regarding what amounts to prejudice in this case present a difference of kind rather than of degree.

  9. Ham v. Breckon

    994 F.3d 682 (4th Cir. 2021)   Cited 28 times
    Rejecting the argument that an "unpublished, non-precedential decision" could "demarcate a change in settled law"

    However, these cases are inapposite because they do not utilize a test like Wheeler . First, the Sixth Circuit employs a savings clause test requiring "(1) a case of statutory interpretation, (2) that is retroactive and could not have been invoked in the initial § 2255 motion, and (3) that the misapplied sentence presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a miscarriage of justice or a fundamental defect." McCormick v. Butler , 977 F.3d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 2020). Rather than requiring a change in substantive law, as does Wheeler , the Sixth Circuit test merely requires the petitioner to demonstrate that Mathis could not have been invoked, whether as foreclosed by circuit precedent or otherwise.

  10. McFadden v. United States

    3:23-CV-241-KAC-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2024)

    The Court liberally construes a pro se Section 2255 petition. See McCormick v. Butler, 977 F.3d 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2020). “But the liberal-construction rule does not ‘abrogate basic pleading essentials,' such as the requirement that a § 2255 petitioner state the factual bases underpinning every claim for relief.”