Correcting Injustice
Casework & Document Resource to Assist Attorneys and Defendants
Casework & Document Access
Provided below are a combination of case summaries and lists highlighting  Mr. Amodeo's work as a post-conviction advocate.  His methodology can be found in accessing the documents he filed directly with the court system.  This way, attorneys and defendants can use these successful strategies and duplicate them to address the issues they are having with their own cases.  If not already provided here, these filings are available to download via the Pacer, Lexis or Westlaw Systems.  Most attorney's already have access to at least one of these subscription services to use for client research and application, but individuals may also obtain subscription access if they desire.  Casetext also offers a look-up option, but only for published cases, not court filings.  

Mr. Amodeo has acted on behalf of hundreds of defendants, so it's impossible to list them all here.  If you don't see a particular issue highlighted below and would like to see if it is something that he has addressed successfully,
you are welcome to contact him directly (link provided below).
Contact Mr. Amodeo
​Curtis Davis - District Court

Curtis Davis seeks to vacate his criminal judgment and obtain a new trial. Even though Mr. Davis's co-defendants filed for certiorari review, Mr. Davis's attorney did not file a petition at the Supreme Court. By failing to file a petition, Mr. Davis's time for filing a 2255 motion to vacate (habeas corpus petition) began to run sooner than other defendants in the trial.

Mr. Davis filed his motion in April 2019. The district court held that his 2255 motion was untimely. Amodeo responded by showing the district court that it misconstrued governing precedent built on Supreme Court Rule 13, and that under a more precise construction, Mr. Davis's motion was timely.

The district court conceded its mistake, but found another reason to declare Mr. Davis untimely. Amodeo objected once more. This time, Amodeo explained that the district court misperceived the Eleventh Circuit's local rules on reconsideration. A precise construction of the appellate rules established Mr. Davis's motion was filed nearly a month before the deadline.
The district court reversed itself, vacated all its prior orders, and allowed Mr. Davis's case to advance.

​Curtis Davis - 11th Circuit

Curtis Davis sought a hearing concerning whether the government could forfeit certain property purchased prior to the offense conduct as a substitute asset without making statutorily authorized allowances for his minor children.
Acting pro se, the district court denied his motions. While still purely pro se, he filed an appeal.

Amodeo entered the case after Davis's original brief was due, but not filed. In lieu of a brief, Amodeo moved for summary reversal, that is, he asked the appellate court to reverse the district court's ruling without argument or briefing.
The appellate court granted the reversal.

Anthony Grant Jackson v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2408 (2016)

Supreme Court of the United States - Jun 6, 2016 - 136 S. Ct. 2408 (2016)

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016).

Jackson v. United States

  United States v. Ignasiak, No. 18-10804-FF (11th Cir. 2019) 

United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit

In 2008, the United States indicted and convicted Robert Ignasiak, M.D., for various drug-related crimes. These alleged offenses were all related to Dr. Ignasiak's medical practice. The United States disagreed with his prescription practices.  He went to trial and was convicted.  This conviction was reversed by the appeals court, stating that the government's trial tactics violated the law and rendered the verdict unreliable. The appeals court ordered a new trial.
But by this time Dr. Ignasiak's wealth had been exhausted. It cost him nearly $5 million to win an appeal. He could not afford even $500,000 for this new trial. Dr. Ignasiak panicked. First, he fled, then he surrendered and pleaded guilty to committing crimes he did not commit. The district court sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Eventually, he calmed down and decided he could not live with the lie. He filed a section 2255 motion pro se--because he is now indigent.
Then, he met Mr. Amodeo. Mr. Amodeo helped modify his section 2255 motion and taught the doctor how to properly testify. After his hearing, the district court agreed Dr. Ignasiak should have a new appeal.
Mr. Amodeo authored the direct appeal identifying substantive trial issues that had not previously been raised and some issues raised but not adjudicated, including whether the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prevents the Drug Enforcement Agency from using criminal laws to control how state-licensed doctors practice medicine. 

Casiano-Jimenez v. United States, 817 F.3d 816 (1st Cir. 2016)

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Without serious question, the court determined that there is a reasonable probability that the petitioner's testimony could have tipped the scales in his favor. See Owens, 483 F.3d at 59 (noting that "[a] defendant's testimony could be crucial in any trial"). Had the petitioner been appropriately informed of his right to testify and had he in fact testified and been found credible by the jury, exoneration was a likely prospect.

Per the courts determination, the record shows with conspicuous clarity both that the petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial and that he was prejudiced as a result, the district court ought to have granted his section 2255 petition. Its failure to do so was reversible error. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remand with instructions to vacate the petitioner's conviction and sentence.

Casiano-Jimenez v. United States

  Galatolo v. United States, #19-21983-CV-MGC, (S.D.FLA)
John Galatolo was convicted in 1989 for conduct the law did not make criminal.  For 30 years Mr. Galatolo has tried to correct that conviction with no success.  His attorney and the court made the mistake, and Mr. Galatolo pays for it because with only his high school education, he had no idea how to properly prepare a habeas corpus petition.  Mr. Amodeo assisted him in re-opening his case in 2018 and continues to contest the conviction, though Mr. Galatolo has finally been released at the age of 74 after more than 30 years in prison.
The government admits Mr. Galatolo is actually innocent, but believes that since the sentence has been completed, it doesn’t matter.  Mr. Amodeo invoked a novel approach to revive the contest long after the statute of limitations has passed.  He combined the miscarriage of justice doctrine with federal rules of civil procedure 60(B)(4) & (6) to reinitiate the process. 
  Larry Porter Case Summary
  Upon arriving at Coleman Federal Prison after a long day of extended transport from a county jail in the Tampa Area, Mr. Porter was notified that his notice of appeal was due that very same day or he would lose his option to make that appeal.  Mr. Amodeo assisted him in quickly making the filing deadline.  Over a year later, the appeal was denied, but during that process, another potential path had opened.  Unfortunately, Coleman was in quarantine, so Larry was unable to reach Mr. Amodeo.  The Federal defender then solicited Larry as a client, an offer which Mr. Porter accepted in the hopes it would assist his appeal process.  But the uphill battle was taking its toll and in an extreme depression, he told Mr. Amodeo that he couldn’t fight for his freedom anymore.  But Mr. Amodeo refused to accept that and insisted that he would not stop trying to assist Mr. Porter.  

A little less than a year later Mr. Amodeo got the Federal Defender removed, and won the appeal.  He had been charged with being a felon in possession of a weapon (which carries a sentence of 1-10 years).  He was sentenced as an armed career criminal (which carries a sentence of 15 years to life).  His total final sentence had been 15 years with the prosecution arguing that his past burglaries from many years ago were violent; which they were not. 

Mr. Amodeo proved that none of the past convictions included violent acts, and if properly considered, the burglaries additionally would have been one not three.  Mr. Amodeo won the appeal for Mr. Porter based on the crimes not being violent, and he was released based on time served 9-years early.
  Adam Rand Case Summary

Administratively Redefined  How the Presentence Report is Analyzed

  Adam Rand had completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program. He had earned a year off, but a combination of mistakes and bureaucratic inertia caused Mr. Rand to become disqualified. Mr. Amodeo assisted Mr. Rand and his attorney with a coordinated challenge to the COP's restrictive view of the facts and the year off was finally granted. 
  Adinojah Lindsay Case Summary

  United States Court of Appeals - 3rd Circuit
Adinojah Lindsay has been in prison since he was 19 years old. A tough guy; a prisoner, not an inmate, but smart too. He came to Coleman full of jailhouse knowledge. And when he came to Mr. Amodeo for assistance, he promptly told Mr. Lindsay his ideas were nonsense, and set him on a new course for his appeal process.
Mr. Amodeo filed a 2255 motion in order to vacate his invalid conviction under 942(c)----using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.  No one was ever hurt, nor was anyone even threatened by Mr. Lindsay. The district court rejected the motion as untimely, and denied several ancillary motions for a variety of procedural reasons.  Eventually, Mr. Amodeo filed a Rule 60(b) motion, claiming the district court's procedural motions were wrong. Of course, the same district court judge who denied the 2255 denied the Rule 60(b) motion. On appeal to the third circuit, he received a partial vacatur of the district court's ruling. Unsatisfied with a partial win, Mr. Amodeo went on to the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General felt that the petition was meritless. The Supreme Court, however, did not, and ordered the Solicitor General to respond on behalf of the United States. The United States has responded, and Mr. Lindsay now waits for the Justices' decision this fall, 2019.
With Mr. Amodeo’s assistance, one way or another, Mr. Lindsay will return to the district court, either with a Supreme Court win in its hand, or the Third Circuit opinion.  
  David Snoddy Case Summary
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 
David Snoddy is diagnosed as bipolar, and he required daily medication. Many people would not associate with him, but Mr. Amodeo listened to him tell a story of how he was improperly given a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence as an Armed Career Criminal Act violator. While David exhibited some odd behaviors associated with his bipolar disorder, Mr. Amodeo noted that he appeared to be manipulative as a coping mechanism, rather than having violent tendencies.
After finding a great deal of truth to Mr. Snoddy’s story, Mr. Amodeo began a challenge to this wrongful conviction using a procedure (2241 Habeas Corpus) that is disfavored in the Eleventh Circuit. During that proceeding, the Supreme Court decided two cases, Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States. Using the holdings of these two cases, Mr. Amodeo switched Mr. Snoddy into a different proceeding----a "second or successive" 2255 motion.
The Eleventh Circuit granted the application----the first Johnson/Welch grant in the Eleventh Circuit.
Four months later, Mr. Amodeo won his appeal for him, and David went home seven years early.
We are continually adding new case summaries, documents and updates to this page as they become available, and we encourage you to return to check for updates.

  1. Anthony Grant Jackson v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2408 (2016) - Summary above
  2. Casiano-Jimenez v. United States, 817 F.3d 816 (1st Cir. 2016) - Summary above
  3. McLeod v. United States, 808 F.3d 972 (4th Cir. 2015)
  4. Dell v. United States, 710 F.3d 1267 (1th Cir. 2013)


  1. Bennett v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11221 (11th Cir. 2019)
  2. Ramdeo v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2466 (11th Cir. 2019)
  3. Heffield v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1561 (11th Cir. 2019)
  4. United States v. Davis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 555 (11th Cir. 2019)
  5. United States v. Cabezas, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25247 (11th Cir. 2018)
  6. Foster v. Warden, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12385 (11th Cir. 2018)
  7. French v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11763 (11th Cir. 2018)
  8. McCalla v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9299 (11th Cir. 2018)
  9. Shaw v. United States, 729 Fed. Appx. 757 (11th Cir. 2018)
  10. Bradley v. United States, 675 Fed. Appx. 895 (11th Cir. 2017)
  11. Venta v. Warden, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19022 (11th Cir. 2017)
  12. Webb v. United States, 688 Fed. Appx. 618 (11th Cir. 2017)
  13. Bullock v. United States, 655 Fed. Appx. 739 (11th Cir. 2016)
  14. In re David Snoddy, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9132 (11th Cir. 2016)
  15. Williams v. United States, 660 Fed. Appx. 847 (11th Cir. 2016)
  16. Dauphin v. United States, 604 Fed. Appx. 814 (11th Cir. 2015)
  17. United States v. Foster, 635 Fed. Appx. 818 (11th Cir. 2015)
  18. Harrison v. United States, 577 Fed. Appx. 911 (11th Cir. 2014)
  19. Duhart v. United States, 556 Fed. Appx. 897 (11th Cir. 2014)
  20. United States v. Bradley, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754 (7th Cir. 2012)