Dyab v. United States, No. 16-1296 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, holding that petitioner's claim, that he was denied due process when the district court entered an amended judgment that modified the restitution order without ensuring that he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard, was not cognizable under section 2255. The Eighth Circuit explained that the district court's order amending the judgment did not result in a new sentence or judgment because there was no substantive proceeding that adjudicated petitioner's guilt or determined the appropriate punishment. Further, the district court did not alter the amount of petitioner's restitution obligation or otherwise change his sanction. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's successive motion for lack of authorization from the court of appeals.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - Habeas. A dispute about restitution does not involve a claim of a right to be released from custody, and a prisoner cannot challenge the restitution portion of his sentence under Section 2255; district court order amending the restitution portion of the judgment did not result in a new sentence or judgment and Dyab could not file a successive habeas without prior authorization from the court of appeals.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.