Thompson v. United States, No. 16-3519 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAn administrative panel's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction typically is the law of the case, ordinarily to be adhered to in the absence of clear error or manifest injustice. After the Eighth Circuit affirmed petitioner's sentence for a drug offense, he then filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The district court denied the motion, but granted a certificate of appealability. Seeing no error or manifest injustice, the court proceeded to the merits of the case and held that, because petitioner made the same Rule 11 argument in his direct appeal, the court declined to relitigate the issue; petitioner has not shown that the government's silence regarding a twelve-year sentence amounted to a promise that induced him to plead guilty; and defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because he failed to point to sufficient contemporaneous evidence to support his post hoc assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty absent his attorney's advice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's section 2255 motion.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Habeas Corpus - motion to vacate. The underlying facts are set forth in United States v. Thompson, 770 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2014. Absent clear error or manifest injustice, the administrative panel's decision that the court has jurisdiction is the law of the case. Claim raised on direct appeal that district court violated Rule 11 by improperly participating in plea negotiations cannot be relitigated in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255. Government's sli [ September 18, 2017
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.