Jose Tamayo-Reyes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.C. Keeney, Respondent-Appellee., 969 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1992)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (July 21, 1992)

Docket number: 90-35315


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/jose-reyes-petitioner-keeney-respondent-37680697
Id. vLex: VLEX-37680697

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Donald R. Bunker, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank Sauser, Superintendent, Spring Creek Correctional Center, Alaska Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee., 996 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - James Mathis, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellant., 975 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1992)

Text:

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Before: BROWNING, CANBY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

The mandate of the United States Supreme Court, certified on June 5, 1992, in Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Tamayo-Reyes, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318, reversed the judgment of this court reported at 926 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. The district court shall determine whether Tamayo-Reyes can show (1) cause for his failure to develop the facts in state-court proceedings and (2) actual prejudice. If he can make such a showing, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in connection with the claim he presents in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If he cannot make such a showing, the district court shall determine if his failure to develop his claim in state-court proceedings shall be excused and a hearing mandated because the failure to hold a federal evidentiary hearing would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

This panel retains jurisdiction of this matter with respect to any appeal or writ resulting from the district court's proceedings on remand.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access