MCCOY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1986)
  …does not by its terms foreclose other consideration of the lapse of time between the petitioner’s conviction and the filing of the habeas petition. Honeycutt v. Ward, 612 F. 2d 36, 43 (CA2 1979) (Friendly, J., concurring in judgment), cert, denied, 446 U. S. 985 (1980). More important, it is a rule of habeas corpus procedure applicable to ha-beas petitions generally, and does not purport to be a rule of substantive law that defines particular substantive claims for relief. Congress’ decision not to amend…
• Farmer v. ARA Servs., Inc., 660 F.2d 1096 (6th Cir. 1981)
  …Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 236-40, 97 S.Ct. 441, 446-49, 50 L.Ed.2d 427 (1976) affirming in relevant part Guy v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.-, 525 F. 2d 124 (6th Cir. 1975); Geromette v. General Motors Corp., 609 F. 2d 1200 (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 985, 100 S.Ct. 2967, 64 L.Ed.2d 841 (1980). Less than 30 days after the Commission’s issuance of a right to sue letter, Chambers joined the other original plaintiffs in filing this action against the employer and the union. Wooton also received and ac…
• United States v. Dickerson, 901 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1990)
  …uty.” People v. Childers, 386 Ill. 312, 53 N.E. 2d 878, 879 (1944). Indeed, it has also been observed that there is a “strong presumption of regularity in state judicial proceedings.” Honeycutt v. Ward, 612 F. 2d 36, 41 (2nd Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 985, 100 S.Ct. 2969, 64 L.Ed.2d 843 (1980). Dickerson has failed to introduce any evidence to overcome the strong presumption of regularity that is reflected in the above factual scenario. Indeed, Dickerson failed to introduce any evidence, request a h…