Marcus Lozada and Jose Orlando Mieles v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Second Circuit, applying the intervening Supreme Court decision in Lindh v. Murphy, held in United States v. Perez that a § 2255 movant who filed before AEDPA took effect need not obtain a certificate of appealability even when appealing later. It expressly said Lozada would no longer be followed to the extent inconsistent with that holding. Later opinions frequently report Perez in a history parenthetical while continuing to cite Lozada for its other COA rules. An unpublished Sixth Circuit opinion also criticized Lozada's requirement to apply for a COA in district court first; the Sixth Circuit remained bound by its own matching precedent. The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
147 later cases cite Marcus Lozada and Jose Orlando Mieles v. United States; 74 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Marcus Lozada and Jose Orlando Mieles v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
After the Supreme Court's intervening AEDPA decision, the Second Circuit rejected Lozada's rule requiring a COA for an appeal from a pre-AEDPA § 2255 motion.
United States v. Perez · Second Circuit · filed
The COA requirement for § 2255 appeals does not apply, because the underlying motion was filed before April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. To the extent that our decision in Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011 (2d Cir.1997), is inconsistent with this conclusion, it will no longer be followed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The Sixth Circuit criticized Lozada's district-court-first COA analysis, but followed its own circuit's precedent adopting that approach.
United States v. Wilson · Sixth Circuit · filed
To be clear, we are extremely skeptical of Lozada’s analysis, as the holding in that case contrasts sharply with the statutory language governing certificates of appealability.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Marcus Lozada and Jose Orlando Mieles v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace