Home
Categories
EXPLORE
True Crime
Comedy
Society & Culture
Business
Sports
History
Fiction
About Us
Contact Us
Copyright
© 2024 PodJoint
00:00 / 00:00
Sign in

or

Don't have an account?
Sign up
Forgot password
https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts221/v4/1f/b0/cf/1fb0cf06-1f77-677c-50c6-275b38dd445d/mza_16781166238813276942.jpg/600x600bb.jpg
Free Speech Press
IG: gerardozurvan
83 episodes
1 day ago
I upload United States Supreme Court Oral Arguments so that the average American can listen on their smartphone. I do not modify the audios. Each episode is identical to the MP3 file provided at supremecourt.gov. This podcast has no affiliation with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Show more...
Government
RSS
All content for Free Speech Press is the property of IG: gerardozurvan and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
I upload United States Supreme Court Oral Arguments so that the average American can listen on their smartphone. I do not modify the audios. Each episode is identical to the MP3 file provided at supremecourt.gov. This podcast has no affiliation with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Show more...
Government
https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42183946/42183946-1728416841022-8b9c4708354af.jpg
Bowe v. United States (2025)
Free Speech Press
1 hour 30 minutes 54 seconds
1 month ago
Bowe v. United States (2025)

Docket Number: 24-5438

Decision Below: CA 11 Order 6/27/2024

Lower Court Case Number: 24-11704

Question Presented

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), "[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." (emphasis added).

The first question presented is:

Whether 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 22 U.S.C. § 2255.

* * *

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), "[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari." (emphasis added).

The second question presented is:

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.


Kasdin M. Mitchell, Esquire, of Dallas, Texas, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below as to question 1 presented by the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Cert. Granted January 17, 2025


See Transcript

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-5438_2dp3.pdf

Free Speech Press
I upload United States Supreme Court Oral Arguments so that the average American can listen on their smartphone. I do not modify the audios. Each episode is identical to the MP3 file provided at supremecourt.gov. This podcast has no affiliation with the Supreme Court of the United States.