United States v. Ciocchetti

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Ciocchetti

    505 F. App'x 798 (10th Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the language of the CBAs "unambiguously requires employer signatories to contribute the appropriate benefits contributions for all hours worked by their employees, regardless of whether those hours are 'covered' under the contract.

    Mr. Ciocchetti sought a COA to appeal from that dismissal and we denied his request. See United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 F. App'x 912, 915 (10th Cir. 2012). In June 2012, Mr. Ciocchetti filed a second 60(b) motion and the district court again concluded that Mr. Ciocchetti was attempting to file an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.

  2. CCA Recordings 2255 Litig. v. United States

    Case No. 19-cv-2491-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2020)

    Thus, there could be no error in denying an evidentiary hearing unless the district court made an incorrect merits determination. United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 F. App'x 912, 914 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173, 1175-76 (10th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)). The burden "for establishing an entitlement to an evidentiary hearing is relatively light."

  3. United States v. Rising

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-01056-WYD (D. Colo. May. 29, 2015)

    there could be no error in denying an evidentiary hearing unless the district court made an incorrect merits determination. It follows that, to argue that the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion, the prisoner generally has to be attacking the district court's analysis of the merits.Id. at 1176; see also Campbell v. Martin, 564 Fed. App'x 415, 418 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 Fed. App'x 912, 914 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Based on the foregoing, I find that Mr. Rising's motion for reconsideration is merits-focused and is a "claim" as defined in Gonzalez.