Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

United States v. Levi

111 F.3d 955

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1997-05-06
Topic
general

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM. No. 96-3083 presents the threshold question whether the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) apply to proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No. 96-5200 presents the same question with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We publish this opinion in order to express agreement with our sister circuits, which have uniformly held the PLRA inapplicable to such proceedings.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Levi. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
UNITED STATES v. LEVI,111 F.3d 955(D.C. Cir. 1997)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. BERNARD S. LEVI, APPELLANT
ADRIAN WILLIAMS-EL, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
Nos. 96-3083, 96-5200
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed May 6, 1997
Bernard S. Levi, pro se, No. 96-3083.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, John R. Fisher, and Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, DC.

Adrian Williams-El, pro se, No. 96-5200.Page 956

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, John R. Fisher, and Elizabeth Trosman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, DC.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nos. 92cr0010-01, 96cv01396
Before: Wald, Williams, and Tatel, Circuit Judges

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
[1] No. 96-3083 presents the threshold question whether the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") apply to proceedings under28 U.S.C. Section(s) 2255. No. 96-5200 presents the same question with respect to28 U.S.C. Section(s) 2254. We publish this opinion in order to express agreement with our sister circuits, which have uniformly held the PLRA inapplicable to such proceedings. See Smith v. Angelone, No. 96-7, 1997 WL 198075, at *2-4 (4th Cir. Apr. 24, 1997); Anderson v. Singletary, No. 96-2697, 1997 WL 188417 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 1997); United States v. Simmonds, No. 96-3287, 1997 WL 177560, at *4-6 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 1997); Naddi v. Hill,106 F.3d 275,277(9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Cole,101 F.3d 1076,1077(5th Cir. 1996); Santana v. United States,98 F.3d 752,755-56(3d Cir. 1996); Martin v. United States,96 F.3d 853,855-56(7th Cir. 1996); Reyes v. Keane,90 F.3d 676,678(2d Cir. 1996).

[2] We need not publish the disposition of the merits of appellants' appeals, which will issue in separate orders.