there is a clearly established federal due process protection against a trial court's reliance on materially false information at sentencing;

Stewart v. Erwin, No. 05-4635
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a sexual battery case is reversed and remanded to supplement the record or grant the writ as: 1) although there is no clearly established federal constitutional right to full disclosure of all information used by a trial judge in determining a defendant's sentence; 2) there is a clearly established federal due process protection against a trial court's reliance on materially false information at sentencing; and 3) it was not possible to ascertain whether such a violation might have occurred here, where a portion of the materials used in determining the sentence have been withheld from federal court review, and where the limited record suggested a reasonable possibility that at least some of the sentencing information might have been errone

Rule 60 (b) is not a habeas petition

Zakrzewski v. McDonough, No. 06-12804
Denial of motion seeking post-judgment relief under rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., where motion was made on the ground that former habeas counsel perpetrated a fraud on the court, is vacated as petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas petition as construed by the district court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, HEALTH LAW, SENTENCING

Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death in a Texas state court is reversed where: 1) the Supreme Court has statutory authority to adjudicate the claims raised in the habeas application; 2) a state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution; and 3) a federal appellate court employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner's claim of incompetency on the merits.