Schreiner v. United States
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Williams v. United States (D.C. 2001)
- Joseph Michael Lacaze, and Douglas Arceneaux v. United States (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. George Edward Pate III (8th Cir. 1991)
- Archie D. Wright v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1978)
- Thomas Robert Wilson v. United States (8th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Daniel Reid and Theodore E. Thomas, Jr. (2d Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Davis (10th Cir. 2014)
- United States v. Smith (4th Cir. 2008)
- Nnebe v. United States (2d Cir. 2008)
- United States v. Burton (10th Cir. 2005)
- United States v. George Keith Williams, Jr., A/K/A Kevin Richardson United States of America v. George Keith Williams, Jr., A/K/A Kevin Richardson (3d Cir. 2003)
- Swann v. United States (D.C. 2001)
- United States v. Christopher A. Smith (10th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Shanta A. Howell and George T. Howell, III (7th Cir. 1994)
- United States v. William B. James (2d Cir. 1993)
- Corley v. United States (D.C. 1980)
- Nathaniel Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, Department of Health& Rehabilitaion Services, State of Florida (5th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Villalobos-Macias (District Court, D. New Mexico 2017)
- United States v. Zayac (2d Cir. 2014)
- United States v. Robert Lee Willis (10th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Pablo Vincent Montoya (10th Cir. 1982)
- Wilkins v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
- Charles Ahumada v. United States (8th Cir. 2021)
- United States. v. Zayac (2d Cir. 2014)
- Nnebe v. United States (2d Cir. 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SCHREINER
v.
UNITED STATES.
Supreme Court of United States.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, including re-entry of its judgment affirming petitioner's conviction and consideration of the appointment of counsel for petitioner in connection with seeking review in this Court of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3006A (c), 3006A (d) (6), 3006A (g). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1709, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1964); Report of the Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, presented to a Special Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 36 F. R. D. 285, 291 (1965); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 (a); Doherty v. United States, ante, p. 28.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
Schreiner has a statutory right to the assistance of a lawyer in drafting his petition for certiorari. As I indicated in Doherty v. United States, ante, p. 29, that right is not conditioned on counsel's appraisal of the merits of the petition. No conditions are attached to rights under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 and the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. This view was adopted by the *68 Judicial Conference's Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act:
"[C]ounsel appointed on appeal should advise the defendant of his right to initiate a further review by the filing of a petition for certiorari, and to file such petition, if requested by the defendant." Report of the Committee to Implement the Criminal Justice Act, 36 F. R. D. 285, 291 (1965).
Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has implemented this suggestion. See 1A West's Federal Forms, Supreme Court, § 488 (B. Boskey ed. 1969).
There may well be instances where the remedy sought is inappropriatee. g., an effort to obtain mandamus where the duty is only discretionary. The statute does not, however, permit an indigent's right to be conditioned upon the fortuity of whether a lawyer believes this Court will grant his petition. We ourselves often have difficulty making that prophecy.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.