Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

In re: Lindsey, No. 09-3184

By FindLaw Staff on September 16, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a drug and firearm prosecution, the denial of plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion claiming that the district court erred in deciding his 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion for sentence modification without granting him an evidentiary hearing is affirmed where plaintiff's claims required authorization under section 2255(h) as a second or successive motion.

Read In re: Lindsey, No. 09-3184

Appellate Information

Filed September 16, 2009


Per Curiam

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard