Abstract: On May 19, 2011, in Gilbert v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a federal prisoner could not use the savings clause contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge collaterally an erroneous application of federal sentencing guidelines when the challenge was otherwise barred by the second or successive motion restriction. In doing so, the court closed off any avenue for relief for a significant number of federal prisoners who may have been sentenced erroneously. This Comment argues that the court’s interpretation of section 2255 represents an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Volume LVI Board of Editors Announced
We are pleased to announce the Board of Editors for the 2014-2015 academic year: Volume 56 Board of Editors […]
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 2
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the March 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and […]
BCLR Moves to # 25 in Law Journal Rankings
The Boston College Law Review has moved from #26 to #25 in the annual Washington and Lee University School of Law Law […]