Appeals of criminal forfeiture
Bradley Lane Croft v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Bradley Lane Croft asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to grant permission to appeal his claim that his lawyer failed to investigate, and its requirement that he obtain permission to challenge a separate forfeiture order.
- Who it affects
- Croft did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court did not decide whether the Fifth Circuit was right.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide either question.
The filing raised one question about Croft’s lawyer’s investigation and another about a separate criminal-forfeiture order.
Question presented
1. Whether the Fifth Circuit contravened the threshold rule of Slack, Miller-El, Tennard, and Buck by denying a certificate of appealability on a preserved Strickland failure-to-investigate claim after the district court resolved disputed factual explanations on paper and assessed prejudice under a broad-deceit rationale without reconciling the post-Dubin identity-specific "who/crux" theory governing the count at issue. 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) permits a court of appeals to require a certificate of appealability for an appeal from a separately adjudicated, noncustodial criminal-forfeiture order that the district court itself treated as outside the scope of § 2255?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.