From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whiteside v. United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 10, 2014
578 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2014)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

granting rehearing en banc in Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2014)

Summary of this case from Sanders v. United States
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

No. 13-7152

07-10-2014

DEANGELO MARQUIS WHITESIDE Petitioner - Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent - Appellee

UNPUBLISHED


(1:09-cr-00069-MR-1)

(1:12-cv-00118-MR)

ORDER

A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in a requested poll of the court to grant the petition for rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.

The parties shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days.

For the Court

Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Summaries of

Whiteside v. United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 10, 2014
578 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2014)

granting rehearing en banc in Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2014)

Summary of this case from Sanders v. United States

granting rehearing en banc in Whiteside and thereby vacating the panel opinion

Summary of this case from Smalls v. United States

rejecting the defendant's contention that the court erred by considering matters not referenced in the government's memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, stating "[t]his contention is without merit because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) permitted the district court to consider the evidence regardless of the fact that the government did not reference [it] in its initial memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Nelson v. Levy Ctr., LLC

In Whiteside v. United States, 578 Fed.Appx. 218 (4th Cir. 2014), the Fourth Circuit issued its en banc decision wherein it determined that the Simmons decision did not qualify as a new "fact" for purposes of Section 2255(f)(4).

Summary of this case from Bowles v. United States

In Whiteside, the Fourth Circuit determined that the one-year limitations period for filing a Section 2255 motion could be equitably tolled where the defendant alleged that the career offender enhancement was erroneous based upon Simmons. Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541, 548 - 53 (4th Cir. April 8, 2014), rev'd en banc, 2014 WL 7245453 (Dec. 19, 2014).

Summary of this case from Bowles v. United States

In Whiteside, the petitioner claimed he was entitled to equitable tolling because "he was prevented from timely filing by the unfavorable precedent that would have governed his claim had he sued prior to Simmons."

Summary of this case from Sanders v. United States
Case details for

Whiteside v. United States

Case Details

Full title:DEANGELO MARQUIS WHITESIDE Petitioner - Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 10, 2014

Citations

578 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Spencer v. United States

706 F.3d at 823. Spencer relies heavily on the now-vacated opinion of the Fourth Circuit in Whiteside v.…

Whitaker v. Dunbar

First, Whitaker challenges his conviction on count five under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in light of Simmons and its…

54 Citing Cases