Case Citator › United States v. Tyrone Perez, Also Known as Larry, Also Known as Starky

United States v. Tyrone Perez, Also Known as Larry, Also Known as Starky

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
129 F.3d 255
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
2000
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Perez's certificate of appealability timing rule was displaced by the Supreme Court's decision in Slack v. McDaniel; the treatment is listed below. Perez had exempted an appeal begun after AEDPA took effect because the underlying Section 2255 motion was filed earlier.
More on how this was screened

Slack held that the appeal date controls the certificate requirement even when the underlying petition was filed before AEDPA. All 46 flagged citations have been read; their repeated references to “abrogated” chiefly describe Perez's treatment of Lozada v. United States.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

46 later cases cite United States v. Tyrone Perez, Also Known as Larry, Also Known as Starky; 46 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 United States v. Tyrone Perez, Also Known as Larry, Also Known as Starky?

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

  • Slack v. McDaniel displaced Perez's rule that a Section 2255 appeal begun after AEDPA took effect needs no certificate of appealability when the underlying motion was filed earlier.

    Slack v. McDaniel · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    First, when a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AEDPA), the right to appeal is governed by the certificate of appealability (COA) requirements now found at 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). This is true whether the habeas corpus petition was filed in the district court before or after AEDPA’s effective date.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Tyrone Perez, Also Known as Larry, Also Known as Starky 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