Case Citator › Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States

Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States

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

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
243 F.3d 893
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
2023
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States was overruled in part. In Jones v. Hendrix, the Supreme Court rejected Reyes-Requena's rule allowing a federal prisoner to use the § 2255(e) savings clause for a § 2241 petition based on a later narrowing interpretation of a criminal statute when a successive § 2255 motion is unavailable.
More on how this was screened

Reyes-Requena's separate rulings on the review of successive § 2255 motions were not addressed. The confirmed treatment is listed below; all 36 flagged citations have been read.

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.

36 later cases cite Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States; 36 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 Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena 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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Reyes-Requena's savings clause route for a statutory interpretation claim barred by the restrictions on successive § 2255 motions.

    Jones v. Hendrix · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    With minor differences in reasoning and wording, they held that §2255 was “inade- quate and ineffective” under the saving clause—and that §2241 was therefore available—when AEDPA’s second-or-successive restrictions barred a prisoner from seeking relief based on a newly adopted narrowing interpretation of a criminal statute that circuit precedent had foreclosed at the time of the prisoner’s trial, appeal, and first §2255 motion. ... Reyes–Requena v. United States, 243 F. 3d 893, 904 (CA5 2001); ... We now hold that the saving clause does not authorize such an end-run around AEDPA.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena 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