COLLINS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Mills v. Singletary, 161 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …ruling that the tests were inadmissible during Florida’s case-in-chief. Federal courts generally do not review a state court’s admission of evidence in habeas corpus proceedings. See McCoy v. Newsome, 953 F. 2d 1252, 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 944, 112 S.Ct. 2283, 119 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). We will not grant federal habeas corpus relief based on an evidentia-ry ruling unless the ruling affects the funda mental fairness of the trial. See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F. 3d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.) (statin…
• Baldwin v. Johnson, 152 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …edural default “must result from some objective factor external to the defense that prevented [him] from raising the claim and which cannot be fairly attributable to his own conduct.” McCoy v. Newsome, 953 F. 2d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 944, 112 S.Ct. 2283, 119 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Under the prejudice prong, Baldwin must show that “the errors at trial actually and substantially disadvantaged his defense so that he was denied fundamental fairness.” McCoy, 953 F. 2d at 1261. In addition…
• United States v. Sanchez-Corcino, 85 F.3d 549 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …ally applies to the violation of § 922(a)(1)(A)— with which Sanchez is charged — the “willfully” requirement of the catch-all § 924(a)(1)(D) applies here. Obiechie, 38 F. 3d at 312; United States v. Collins, 957 F. 2d 72, 74 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 504 U.S. 944, 112 S.Ct. 2285, 119 L.Ed.2d 210 (1992). Thus, the context within which subsection (D)’s “willfully” requirement must be interpreted includes the other subsections — (A) through (C) — of § 924(a)(1). The Seventh Circuit interpreted subsection (D)’…