DEAN

v.

KAISER, WARDEN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• In re Haas v. Internal Revenue Serv., 48 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …t is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” ’ ” (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525, 107 S.Ct. 1891, 1393, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) (per curiam))), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979, 111 S.Ct. 1629, 113 L.Ed.2d 725 (1991). Cf. Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 1910, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980) (“Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions…
• Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F. 2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979, 111 S.Ct. 1629, 113 L.Ed.2d 725 (1991). . If we were to dismiss the appellant's notice of appeal in the instant case, he would not be permitted to file a Rule 4(a)(6) motion because more than seven days have passed since he received notice of the…
• In re Vann v. Vann, 67 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …93, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) (per curiam) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983)); accord In re Haas, 48 F. 3d at 1156-57; United States v. Jordan, 915 F. 2d 622, 628 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979, 111 S.Ct. 1629, 113 L.Ed.2d 725 (1991). Vann has pointed to no authority supporting the concept that Congress specifically intended for a reasonable reliance standard to apply. Thus, we can deduce from the exclusion of the reasonable reliance sta…