U.S. v. Allen

4 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. United States

    558 U.S. 925 (2009)

    Denaine L. ALLEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 320 Fed.Appx. 488. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

  2. United States v. Brik

    Crim. No. 15-78 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    As counsel for the Government notes, where the parties are silent as to the applicability of an enhancement, as they were here with respect to § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C), the Government does not breach a plea agreement either when it advocates for or fails to object to the applicability of an unreferenced enhancement. United States v. Allen, 320 Fed. App'x 488, 489 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding no breach of plea agreement where the government advocated for an enhancement under Chapter 4, where plea agreement was silent as to such enhancements); United States v. Cheek, 69 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding that the government did not breach plea agreement by requesting an enhancement based on the defendant's role in the offense, even though the agreement was silent on the issue of role enhancement and did not indicate that the defendant would receive any specific sentence). Additionally, the Plea Agreement here contained no stipulation that "no other specific offense characteristics apply."

  3. Allen v. United States

    CASE NO. 11-3184-RDR (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2012)

    Before the court is a pro se petition titled as seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed by a prisoner incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Petitioner alleges he is illegally confined, alleges error in the sentence imposed in 2007 for his conviction in the Western District of Missouri, and seeks resentencing to correct sentencing error in his criminal history score. See U.S. v. Allen, 320 Fed.Appx. 488 (8th Cir.2009)(government did not breach plea agreement for Allen's guilty plea). By an order dated February 8, 2012, the court directed petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241 to address petitioner's claims because petitioner made no showing satisfying the "savings clause" in § 2241 which allows for review of petitioner's challenge to the legality of the sentence imposed in his criminal proceeding only if petitioner demonstrates the remedy afforded by § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.

  4. Allen v. United States

    CASE NO. 11-3184-RDR (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2012)

    See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Gibson v. Fleming, 28 Fed.Appx. 911, 913 (10th Cir.2001)(court is to dismiss § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction where petitioner challenged federal conviction or sentence and did not show § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective)(citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166-67 (10th Cir.2001)). See U.S. v. Allen, 320 Fed.Appx. 488 (8th Cir.2009)(government did not breach plea agreement for Allen's guilty plea). The court notes that the instant action, initiated in October 2011, would likely fall outside the one year limitation period for seeking relief under § 2255.