Assertion: federal court's case | /r/HasProperty | remanded for consideration
Facets:
value: as a 32(d) motion
type: MANNER
value: as defendant's complaint
type: OTHER
value: in watson
type: LOCATION
Source sentences:
text: It is noteworthy, however, that in Dabdoub-Diaz, Meyer and Kent the defendant did not prevail under either §2255 or Rule 32(d), and that in Watson, though the §2255 case was remanded for consideration as a 32(d) motion, defendant's complaint (that he was not advised of the special parole term, though the sentence he received did not exceed that he was warned about by the court) was one as to which relief had been denied even upon direct appeal from the conviction.