Source: http://openjurist.org/96/f3d/635/thye-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 11:12:59
Document Index: 719501744

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 102', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 2254', '§ 2255']

96 F3d 635 Thye v. United States | OpenJurist
96 F. 3d 635 - Thye v. United States HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series 96 F.3d
96 F3d 635 Thye v. United States 96 F.3d 635
Ee Ah THYE, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 51, Docket 96-2088.
Submitted Aug. 30, 1996.Decided Sept. 24, 1996.
Before: KEARSE and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK, District Judge*.
Preliminarily, we note that as of April 24, 1996, the procedures governing appeals from denials of petitions under § 2255 were amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 102, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, to, inter alia, impose on a would-be appellant the requirement that he obtain from the court of appeals a certificate of appealability determining that he has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Thye's notice of appeal was filed in January 1996, and there is some question as to whether the April 24, 1996 requirement is to be applied retroactively to appeals pending on that date. In Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 680 (2d Cir.1996), this Court held that the "substantial showing" requirement imposed by § 2253 as amended is retroactively applicable to appeals from denials of habeas corpus petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The decision in Reyes does not answer the retroactivity question with regard to a § 2255 petitioner, however, for the Reyes opinion noted that the amendment requiring a certificate of appealability was essentially a procedural amendment, given that prior to the April 1996 amendments a § 2254 petitioner was required to obtain a substantively similar "certificate of probable cause" in order to appeal; in contrast, no such requirement for a certificate had been imposed on a § 2255 petitioner prior to the amendments.
On the merits, we affirm. Thye's speedy trial contention was waived by his entry of a plea of guilty. See, e.g., Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987); LaMagna v. United States, 646 F.2d 775, 778 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 898, 102 S.Ct. 399, 70 L.Ed.2d 214 (1981). His contention that he was entitled to an immediate deportation hearing is rejected substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Dearie's Memorandum and Order dated January 2, 1996.