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.
BCLR Releases Vol. LIV No. 2
Boston College Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our March 2013 issue. • Jeremy Waldron, Separation of [...]
BCLR Elects New Board of Editors
On March 22, 2013, the membership of the Boston College Law Review elected a new Board of Editors for the [...]
BCLR Editors Win Student Writing Competitions
Two members of the Boston College Law Review‘s Executive Board, Laura Kaplan and Michael Palmisciano, recently won national writing competitions [...]