Federal Habeas Quick Reference Guide for Federal Prisoners
Use Claim by Claim. Use this Guide with the preceding Cover Story. The requirements operate independently and
cumulatively. A timely or reviewable claim does not necessarily warrant relief.
Verify Before Acting. Confirm current statutes, federal and local rules, official forms, and controlling decisions.
Calculate every deadline from the case’s own record. If the governing deadline is uncertain, choose the earliest plausible deadline as your filing target.
Read Across Each Row. Identify the rule, take the stated action, and check the limitation. References such as “Section 3A” or “Section 6” direct you to the corresponding Section of this Guide. Short-form authorities refer to the full
discussion in the Cover Story. “Section 2255 Rules” means the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Unless
the row or paragraph identifies a different rule set, unqualified references to “Rule” or “Rules” mean the Section 2255
Rules. “Appellate,” “Civil,” and “Criminal” Rules mean the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Civil Procedure,
and Criminal Procedure, respectively.
Where to Start. Section 1 identifies the proper procedure. For a § 2255 motion, use Sections 3A and 8 to calculate
and record your deadline, then Section 3B for filing instructions. Before filing, work through Section 2’s threshold
inquiry and each applicable barrier. Before another § 2255 motion, also check Section 2’s Barrier 8 entries and Section 6. For ineffective-assistance claims, use Sections 4 and 5 for evidence and prejudice. If relief has been denied or
granted only in part, promptly consult Section 3B’s appeal and postjudgment instructions. Use Section 7 to track
preparation and preservation tasks, and consult the Cover Story for fuller explanations and authorities.

1. Choose the Correct Procedure
Start with what you challenge and the relief you seek. The filing’s substance controls; changing its title does not remove the governing restrictions.
Identify the Governing Circuit. For § 2255, consult binding precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals covering
the sentencing district, even if you are imprisoned elsewhere. For an ordinary § 2241 sentence-execution challenge
filed in the confinement district, consult the circuit covering that district. Applicable Supreme Court precedent controls in either proceeding. Other circuits’ decisions generally may inform the court’s reasoning but do not bind it.
Your claim or objective

Ordinary procedure and action

Important limit

Federal conviction or
sentence
§ 2255(a)

For a collateral challenge, file a § 2255 motion in the
sentencing court. Identify a recognized constitutional,
federal-law, jurisdictional, statutory-maximum, or other
qualifying collateral claim.

Ordinary rule violations and sentencing disagreements are not
necessarily cognizable (of a kind § 2255 permits). Before filing during a
pending direct appeal, check controlling circuit law and calculate every
applicable deadline.

Sentence execution or
credits
§ 2241; Wilson; Padilla

A genuine execution challenge ordinarily belongs under
§ 2241 in the confinement district, naming the
immediate custodian. The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(‘‘BOP’’), not the sentencing court, initially calculates
prior-custody credit. Wilson. Obtain the relevant BOP
calculations and preserve administrative requests and
decisions.

Follow controlling exhaustion law; circuit rules and exceptions differ.
Credit eligibility does not necessarily establish entitlement to a particular
placement. The pending case Maxwell v. Dinis concerns whether § 2241 is
available for First Step Act time-credit claims seeking accelerated transfer
to a halfway house or home confinement. Jones v. Hendrix also preserves
§ 2241 for unusual circumstances making sentencing-court relief
impossible or impracticable, but not merely because § 2255(h) bars a
successive statutory claim; see Section 6.

BOP administrative review
28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13---.18

The ordinary process generally proceeds through
informal resolution, BP-9 to the warden, BP-10 to the
Regional Director, and BP-11 to General Counsel.
Preserve submissions and responses.

Some disputes use different procedures: discipline hearing officer
appeals begin with the Regional Director. Consult 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13---.18
for applicable filing requirements, exceptions, deadlines, and treatment
of unanswered requests.

Retroactive Guidelines
amendment or covered
crack offense
§ 3582(c)(2); First Step Act
§ 404

Seek the authorized reduction in the criminal case.
Section 3582(c)(2) requires a qualifying retroactive
Guidelines amendment, subject to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
Section 404 addresses qualifying covered crack offenses
committed before August 3, 2010.

Eligibility does not require a reduction. Section 3582(c)(2) permits a
limited adjustment, not a full resentencing or correction of unrelated
errors. Dillon. Prior application of the Fair Sentencing Act changes or a
prior merits denial under § 404 can bar another motion. Proper reduction
motions do not count as § 2255 motions; neither procedure authorizes
vacating the conviction.

Compassionate release
§ 3582(c)(1)(A); Fernandez;

Identify a qualifying extraordinary and compelling
reason under the statute and applicable policy

Do not use the motion to attack conviction validity. Congress’
nonretroactive § 924(c) change cannot establish eligibility, alone or with

Your claim or objective

Ordinary procedure and action

Important limit

Rutherford

statement. Medical, age-related, and family
circumstances can remain relevant.

other factors. Once an independent qualifying reason exists, a legal
change may bear on the reduction’s extent. A qualifying reason does not
itself require a reduction; eligibility and the amount of any reduction
remain separate determinations.

New trial or narrow
sentence correction
Criminal Rules 33, 35

Rule 33 ordinarily allows three years after the verdict or
finding of guilt for newly discovered evidence and 14
days for other grounds, subject to Criminal Rule 45
extensions. Rule 35(a) ordinarily allows 14 days after
oral sentencing for arithmetic, technical, or other clear
error.

Rule 35(b) requires a substantial-assistance motion by the Government,
generally within one year after sentencing, with specified later
exceptions. Criminal Rule 62 permits limited Rule 35 extensions during a
declared Criminal Rules emergency. These are not general
reconsideration procedures. After sentencing, a guilty plea can be set
aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack. Criminal Rule 11(e).

Extraordinary relief when
ordinary remedies are
unavailable
Coram nobis; Morgan

Examine fundamental error, absence of another
available remedy, sound reasons for not seeking earlier
relief, and controlling circuit law. Coram nobis
commonly becomes relevant after the sentence expires.

The writ is not an automatic substitute for an unavailable § 2255 claim.
Custody, diligence, and prior opportunities require circuit-specific
analysis.

Conditions of confinement
or damages

Identify an available civil cause of action and the proper
defendants. Distinguish prison conditions from the
validity or execution of custody.

Federal custody itself creates no damages remedy. Egbert sharply limits
recognition of new implied constitutional damages claims against
federal officers.

2. The Threshold Inquiry and Nine Barriers
Apply each relevant checkpoint separately to every ground. These nine barriers differ from the state-prisoner
(§ 2254) framework.
Checkpoint

Court’s question and core rule

What you should do

Critical trap or limited gateway

Threshold:
Custody and
cognizability
§ 2255(a)
Details: Sections 1 and 6.

Are you in custody under the
challenged federal sentence and
asserting a recognized ground for
release? Supervised release qualifies as
custody.

Identify the judgment, custody, legal
defect, facts, and requested remedy.
Classify a sentencing error by its source and
effect.

An expired sentence’s collateral
consequences alone ordinarily do not
establish custody at filing. A restitution-only
claim typically asserts no right to release.
Ordinary advisory-Guidelines error is not
automatically cognizable. Custody ending
after filing does not automatically end the
case; continuing consequences can
preserve a live controversy.

Barrier 1:
Plea and waivers
Tollett; United States v.
White (5th Cir. 2002)
Details: Sections 5 and 6.

A guilty plea ordinarily forecloses
independent challenges to pre-plea
defects. Valid direct-appeal and
collateral-review waivers relinquish
specified claims in their respective
proceedings. Analyze the plea and each
waiver separately under the agreement
and controlling law. Hunter held that a
sentence-appeal waiver is
unenforceable when enforcement
would produce a miscarriage of justice:
an error obvious and egregious enough
to bring the judicial system into
disrepute. Ordinary sentencing-law
errors do not qualify.

Read the plea and each waiver separately.
Identify written exceptions and exceptions
recognized by controlling circuit law,
including any applicable exception for a
sentence exceeding the statutory
maximum or based on an impermissible
factor such as race. Preserve counsel’s
advice, the Criminal Rule 11 colloquy, and
the Government’s promises and
performance.

An exception for ineffective assistance
affecting the plea or waiver may exclude
sentencing-performance claims. Hunter
decided a direct-appeal waiver issue, not
collateral-waiver enforceability. Justice
Sotomayor’s statement in Jones v. United
States (2026), encouraging lower courts to
consider Hunter’s reasoning for
collateral-review waivers invoked against
challenges to a conviction’s validity, is not a
holding.

Barrier 2:
One-year period
§ 2255(f); Dodd
Details: Section 3A.

Was each claim filed within one year of
its latest applicable statutory starting
date, with any independently justified
equitable tolling?

Test finality, an unlawful governmental
impediment, a qualifying newly recognized
right, and facts discoverable through
diligence. Record proof and a filing target.

Another collateral case does not pause the
year merely because it is pending. A later
retroactivity ruling does not restart the
recognition-date clock.

Barrier 3:
Procedural default
Frady; Bousley; Massaro

Was a claim omitted at trial or on direct
review when it should have been
presented? Ordinarily show cause and

Identify an external impediment or
constitutionally ineffective assistance that
caused the omission; prove any

Massaro permits ineffective-assistance
claims for the first time under § 2255
despite omission on direct appeal. Novelty

Checkpoint

Court’s question and core rule

What you should do

Critical trap or limited gateway

Details: Section 6.

actual prejudice, or factual innocence.

ineffective-assistance theory on its own
elements. Prove actual prejudice
separately. For innocence, address the full
record and applicable standard.

can establish cause when the claim’s legal
basis was not reasonably available to
counsel. Reed v. Ross. Adverse precedent
alone does not establish cause.

Barrier 4:
Pleading and
preliminary review
Rules 2---5; Castro; Civil
Rule 15
Details: Section 3B.

Do specific facts support relief, and is
the filing properly classified? Rule 4
requires dismissal when the motion,
exhibits, and prior record plainly show
no entitlement.

State every ground and supporting facts on
AO 243 or the local equivalent; sign under
penalty of perjury. Address amendment
and timeliness separately.

A placeholder does not reserve claims, and
the bare statement that counsel was
ineffective is not a supporting fact.
Recharacterization as a first motion requires
Castro safeguards. A later claim does not
relate back merely because it attacks the
same conviction.

Barrier 5:
Evidence, hearing, and
counsel
§ 2255(b); Rules 6---8
Details: Section 4.

Do the motion, files, and records
conclusively show no entitlement? If
not, § 2255(b) requires a hearing.
Discovery, record expansion, counsel,
and services have separate conditions.

Identify each material factual dispute, its
relevance to relief, and the specific
evidence or procedure needed to resolve it.

There is no § 2254(e)(2) restriction, but
neither discovery nor a hearing follows from
conclusory allegations. Counsel’s affidavit
does not automatically settle disputed facts.

Barrier 6:
Prejudice and harmless
error
Strickland; Hill v.
Lockhart; Glover
Details: Sections 5 and 6.

Does the proven error satisfy the
prejudice or harmless-error rule for this
claim and procedural posture?

Match the showing to trial, plea, lost offer,
sentencing, or appeal. Use Section 5’s
prejudice table and identify the remedy
that would cure the defect.

Proof of deficient performance alone is
insufficient. Circuit law controls ordinary
trial-error harmlessness under § 2255. Relief
need not mean release or full resentencing.

Barrier 7:
Certificate of
appealability (‘‘COA’’)
§ 2253(c); Section 2255
Rule 11; Slack
Details: Section 3B.

After merits denial, could reasonable
jurists debate the constitutional
assessment? After procedural denial,
could reasonable jurists debate both
the constitutional claim’s validity and
the procedural ruling?

Identify the constitutional right, specific
issues, and every independently sufficient
ground for denying the claim being
appealed. Request a COA from a circuit
judge if the District Court denies one; seek
expansion under circuit procedures if the
certificate omits an issue necessary for
relief. File the notice of appeal on time.

A COA is not a notice of appeal. You need
not prove the appeal will succeed. A
statutory claim’s cognizability does not
itself support a COA. Partial relief can create
a separate criminal appeal.

Barrier 8A:
Is the filing successive?
Castro; Rivers; Gonzalez;
Magwood; In re Augustin
(6th Cir. 2026)
Details: Sections 3B and
6.

Classification depends on substance,
the judgment challenged, and the
earlier proceeding’s disposition --- not
document count alone.

Check the first disposition, any new criminal
judgment, any later event creating the
claim, and whether the filing attacks a
genuine procedural defect or asserts a
merits claim. For later-arising claims, see
Section 6.

A first motion properly dismissed as
untimely counts for successive-motion
purposes; a procedural-default denial can
also count. After a merits judgment, new
claims against the same criminal judgment
are generally successive even while an
appeal from the § 2255 decision is pending.
Rivers; Taylor (11th Cir. 2025). A reduced
sentence does not necessarily mean a new
judgment; see Section 6.

Barrier 8B:
Authorization
§ 2255(h); Rule 9; Bowe
Details: Section 6.

Before District Court filing, did the Court
of Appeals authorize a successive
motion under qualifying newly
discovered evidence or a qualifying new
constitutional rule?

Follow the circuit’s authorization procedure
and make the required prima facie, or
preliminary, showing. Each claim must still
satisfy § 2255(h); calculate § 2255(f)
timeliness separately.

Obtain authorization before filing. The
Tenth Circuit treats the requirement as
jurisdictional. A Fourth Circuit panel
characterized it as nonjurisdictional in
Robinson (4th Cir. 2025), while
acknowledging earlier circuit decisions
using jurisdictional language. Robinson’s
certiorari petition remains pending. Bowe
adds no third ground. Permission to file
establishes neither actual eligibility nor
timeliness nor entitlement to relief.

Barrier 9:
Retroactivity
Teague; Edwards; Tyler
Details: Sections 3A and
6.

Is the rule new, and is it substantive or
procedural? New substantive rules
generally apply retroactively; new
procedural rules ordinarily do not. The
former watershed exception is gone.

Record finality and announcement dates.
Separately test retroactivity, § 2255(f)(3),
and, if successive, § 2255(h)(2).

A retroactive statutory interpretation on
initial review is not a new constitutional rule
under § 2255(h)(2). A lower court’s
retroactivity conclusion does not satisfy the
Supreme Court requirement there.

3. Critical Dates and Filing Mechanics
Deadlines at a Glance
Ordinary periods only. Read the cited Section’s conditions before relying on an entry.
Filing or action

Ordinary period

Starting event

See

§ 2255 motion

1 year

Latest applicable § 2255(f) date, usually finality

3A

Criminal appeal (original or new criminal
judgment)

14 days

Entry of the criminal judgment

3A, 3B

Criminal appeal extension, Appellate Rule
4(b)(4)

Court may extend to no more than 30 days after
the standard deadline

End of the 14-day period

3B

Certiorari petition (direct review or circuit
COA denial)

90 days

Entry of appellate judgment or denial order; after
timely appellate rehearing, its denial or, if granted,
the later judgment

3A, 3B

Objections to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation

14 days, computed under Civil Rule 6(a), plus any
applicable Rule 6(d) addition

Service of the recommendation; mail service is
complete on mailing

3B

Civil Rule 59(e) motion

28 days; no ordinary extension

Entry of the § 2255 judgment

3B

Notice of appeal from the § 2255 decision

60 days, subject to qualifying postjudgment
motions

Entry of the appealable judgment or order

3B

Civil appeal extension motion, Appellate
Rule 4(a)(5)

Before, or no later than 30 days after, expiration of
the standard appeal period

End of the standard appeal period

3B

Civil appeal reopening, Appellate Rule
4(a)(6)

Motion: earlier of 180 days after entry or 14 days
after receiving Civil Rule 77(d) notice. If reopened:
14 days to appeal

Judgment/order entry or receipt of notice, as
stated; appeal period runs from entry of the
reopening order

3B

Genuine Civil Rule 60(b) motion

Reasonable time; grounds (1)---(3) ordinarily also
have a one-year outer limit

For the one-year limit: entry of the challenged
judgment or order, or date of the proceeding

3B

Criminal Rule 33 new-trial motion

3 years (newly discovered evidence); 14 days
(other grounds), subject to Rule 45

Verdict or finding of guilt

1

Criminal Rule 35(a) sentence correction

14 days for court correction

Oral sentencing

1

If no appeal is filed, finality ordinarily follows expiration of the 14-day criminal appeal period (Section 3A). Count
time under the governing rule. Extensions and reopening require their own conditions; check the emergency-rule
exceptions in the cited Sections. This table does not extend any deadline.

A. Calculate and Protect the One-Year Period
Make a separate chronology for each claim. Keep the orders, docket entries, and records supporting every date.
Count each period under its governing rule. For periods stated in days, Civil Rule 6(a) excludes the triggering day
and counts every following day, including weekends and legal holidays. Section 2255(f)’s year ordinarily ends on the
anniversary of the triggering date, even when February 29 intervenes (Marcello). If the calculated last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, continue to the next day that is none of them. Use Appellate Rule 26(a) for appellate
periods and Supreme Court Rule 30 for Supreme Court periods.
Civil Rule 6(d) adds three days only when a response period runs from service by a specified method. It does not extend § 2255(f)’s filing period, the Rule 59(e) period, or an ordinary notice-of-appeal period. For mailed magistrate
recommendations and filing objections from prison, follow the separate service and deposit instructions in Section
3B.

Event or issue

Rule or period

What you should do or preserve

Critical trap

Direct appeal
completed; no
certiorari petition
§ 2255(f)(1); Sup. Ct.
R. 13.1, 13.3; Clay

Ordinarily one year from finality when the
certiorari period expires. The standard 90
days run from the appellate judgment or,
after a timely appellate rehearing petition,
from rehearing denial or the subsequent
judgment if rehearing is granted.

Examine the appellate judgment,
rehearing history, and certiorari records.
Check the current applicable Supreme
Court rules.

The mandate date does not control.
Dismissed appeals, amended judgments, and
resentencing require the actual record and
circuit law. A sentence reduction alone does
not establish a new filing period; see Section
6.

Timely certiorari
petition on direct
review
§ 2255(f)(1); Clay;
Robinson v. United
States (7th Cir. 2005)

Finality ordinarily occurs when the
Supreme Court denies certiorari or affirms
on the merits; subsection (f)(1) supplies
one year from that finality date.

Preserve the Supreme Court order and
docket. Identify how direct review ended
before calculating the year.

A request for rehearing of a certiorari denial
does not itself postpone finality. Distinguish
that request from rehearing in the Court of
Appeals.

No direct appeal
§ 2255(f)(1);
Appellate Rules 4(b),
26(a)

Finality ordinarily occurs when the
criminal appeal period expires, generally
14 days after judgment is entered on the
criminal docket.

Count intervening weekends and legal
holidays; move an ending day falling on a
weekend or legal holiday to the next
qualifying day.

Do not add the 90-day certiorari period to an
unappealed judgment.

Governmental
impediment
§ 2255(f)(2)

The year may begin when an impediment
created by governmental action violating
the Constitution or federal law is removed,
if it prevented the motion.

Identify the unlawful action, its dates, how
it prevented filing, and when it was
removed. Preserve requests, responses,
and other proof.

An unsupported assertion of obstruction
does not establish the statutory conditions.

Newly recognized
right
§ 2255(f)(3); Dodd

The year starts with the Supreme Court’s
initial recognition of the asserted right, if
newly recognized and made retroactively
applicable on collateral review.

Record the initial decision date and
establish every statutory condition for the
particular claim.

A later retroactivity decision does not restart
the year. A decision’s announcement alone
does not make a claim timely.

New supporting facts
§ 2255(f)(4); Johnson
(2005); Whiteside

The year may begin when due diligence
could have discovered the supporting
facts. Notice of predicate-conviction
vacatur can qualify if vacatur was
diligently pursued after the enhanced
federal judgment.

Identify the new fact, discovery date, and
earlier investigative efforts. Preserve the
vacatur order and proof of notice where
relevant.

A decision changing the legal significance of
existing facts is not itself a new fact under the
Fourth Circuit’s Whiteside rule. If the
predicate conviction was vacated after your
initial § 2255 proceeding ended, separately
check whether the resulting motion is
nonsuccessive under the later-arising-claim
rule; see Section 6.

Counsel failed to file a
requested appeal
§ 2255(f)(4); Wims;
Aron

Subsection (f)(4) may supply a later
starting date: when reasonable diligence
would have disclosed that no notice of
appeal was filed.

Promptly request counsel’s copy of the
filed notice and confirm filing with the
district clerk. Keep dated inquiries,
responses, discovery information, and
proof of obstacles.

Late actual discovery does not automatically
give you a year from that discovery. The court
may find the omission reasonably
discoverable earlier, considering your
circumstances and confinement conditions.

Other proceedings or
extension requests

Section 2255 has no counterpart to
§ 2244(d)(2)’s exclusion for pending state
collateral review. A request for more time
does not itself suspend the deadline.

Continue preparing and filing a factually
supported motion while a records request,
collateral case, or extension request
remains pending.

Courts disagree about prefiling extension
authority. A promise to provide claims later
does not reserve them. Missing affidavits do
not extend the year.

Equitable tolling
Holland; Martin; Sosa;
Akins

Show reasonable diligence and an
extraordinary circumstance that
prevented timely filing, under controlling
circuit law.

Keep a dated log and proof of the
obstruction’s duration and effect, and of
your efforts to prepare and file before,
during, and after it.

Lack of legal training, ordinary attorney
negligence, simple error, or a lockdown
allegation alone is insufficient. Connect the
circumstance to the actual delay.

Actual-innocence
gateway
McQuiggin; Schlup

The demanding gateway uses new reliable
evidence showing that, more likely than
not, no reasonable juror would have
convicted. Circuit law controls its
application to federal prisoners.

Distinguish factual innocence of the
offense from a defective plea record, legal
insufficiency, or claimed innocence of a
noncapital sentence.

Delay bears on reliability. Do not assume a
noncapital sentencing claim qualifies. The
gateway is distinct from tolling and does not
replace § 2255(h).

B. File, Respond, Amend, and Preserve Review
Identify the ruling or event that starts each period. Different filings can have different deadlines in the same case.
Event or filing

Rule or period

What you should do or preserve

Critical trap

Initial motion
Rules 2---3; AO 243

Use AO 243 or the prescribed local
equivalent. State every ground, supporting
facts, and relief; sign under penalty of
perjury. File separate motions for separate
judgments. Substantially follow the
national or local form. The clerk may not
reject the motion solely because it is not on
the prescribed form; the court may require
correction. Request the appropriate form
from the sentencing court’s clerk; Rule 2(c)
requires forms to be available without
charge. Do not delay filing past the
deadline while waiting for a form.

Rule 3 specifies an original and two copies.
Verify current local instructions. No filing
fee is required. Under Rule 3(b), the clerk
delivers or serves the initial motion and
notice of filing on the district’s U.S.
Attorney. Follow applicable rules and court
orders for service of later papers.

Legal citations are unnecessary on the
national form; supporting facts are
essential. Omitted grounds may later be
unavailable.

Prison deposit of
§ 2255 papers
Section 2255 Rule
3(d)

A prisoner’s paper is timely when deposited
by the deadline. Use the institution’s
legal-mail system when one exists.

Keep a dated and signed § 1746 declaration
or notarized statement identifying the
deposit date and prepaid first-class
postage, plus available mail records.

A later clerk’s receipt does not replace a
properly established deposit date. Keep a
copy of the paper and mailing proof.

Government’s answer
Rules 4---5

Unless preliminary dismissal is required, the
judge orders a response or specified action.
Rule 5 permits a reply.

Address the answer’s factual and
procedural assertions within the court’s
instructions. Identify referenced briefs or
transcripts missing from the record.

If the answer refers to an absent brief or
transcript, the judge must order the
Government to furnish it. An order to
respond is not a merits ruling. If the court
raises timeliness on its own, check
controlling circuit law on notice and
opportunity to respond, and on the effect
of a deliberate Government waiver. Day;
Wood. Address the court’s calculation and
your supporting facts promptly.

Recharacterization as
your first motion
Castro

Before recharacterizing a pro se filing as a
first § 2255 motion, the court must give
notice, warn about successive-motion
consequences, and allow withdrawal or
amendment.

Read the notice, consider the first-motion
consequences, and preserve objections to
missing safeguards.

Without these safeguards, the
recharacterized filing does not count as the
first motion for later successive-motion
restrictions.

Adding a claim before
judgment
Civil Rule 15; Mayle

Civil Rule 15 permits amendment within
specified periods or later with written
consent or court leave. An otherwise
untimely claim requires an applicable
timeliness basis, including relation back
where available.

For relation back, identify the common core
of operative facts shared with a timely
claim. Check controlling circuit law
applying Mayle to § 2255.

Permission to amend does not establish
timeliness. Challenging the same
conviction is insufficient. For amendments
to an authorized successive motion, check
circuit law on adding claims beyond the
authorization. The Eleventh Circuit requires
further Court of Appeals authorization for
those claims. Ragland. After denial or
dismissal, analyze successive-motion and
postjudgment rules.

Magistrate judge’s
recommendation
Section 2255 Rule
8(b); Civil Rules
5(b)(2)(C), 6(a), 6(d)

Object within 14 days after service. For
mailed service, compute the 14 days from
mailing under Civil Rule 6(a), including any
ending-day adjustment; then add three
days under Rule 6(d) and adjust the last day
again if it is a weekend or legal holiday. The
District Court decides each properly
objected-to portion de novo
(independently).

Identify each disputed finding or legal
conclusion and explain the error. Preserve
the service date and specific objections. For
objections filed from prison, follow the
Section 2255 Rule 3(d) deposit and proof
requirements above.

Check applicable local rules and court
orders. Late or insufficiently specific
objections can forfeit appellate review
under controlling circuit law. Mail service is
complete on mailing, not receipt.

Certificate of
appealability
Section 2255 Rule 11;

The District Court grants or denies a COA
with the final adverse order. If denied, seek
a certificate from a circuit judge.

Identify specific constitutional issues and
address every independently sufficient
ground for denying the claim under the

Neither a COA request nor reconsideration
of the District Court’s COA denial extends
the notice-of-appeal deadline.

Event or filing

Rule or period

§ 2253(c)

What you should do or preserve

Critical trap

applicable merits or procedural standard. If
a certificate omits an issue needed for relief,
request expansion under circuit
procedures. File the notice without waiting
for the COA.

Appeal from denial of
§ 2255 relief
Appellate Rules 4(a),
22(b); Civil Rule
77(d)(2)

Ordinarily file the notice within 60 days
after entry of the appealable judgment or
order because the United States is a party,
subject to qualifying postjudgment
motions.

File the notice of appeal with the clerk of
the District Court that entered the decision.
Identify the appealed judgment or order
and calendar the deadline. Without an
express COA request, the notice also
constitutes a request.

A COA does not replace the timely notice.
Missing or delayed judgment notice does
not automatically postpone the deadline.
Check the separate extension and
reopening rows below.

Appeal fees and in
forma pauperis status
§ 1915(a); Appellate
Rules 3, 24

An appeal from the § 2255 decision
ordinarily requires $605 in filing and
docketing fees, paid to the district clerk. For
notices of appeal filed on or after December
1, 2026, the total is $670. In forma pauperis
status permits proceeding without
prepayment. The Prison Litigation Reform
Act’s mandatory installment-payment
requirements do not apply.

Check whether prior status continues under
Rule 24(a)(3). An initial application belongs
in the District Court and requires a financial
affidavit, proposed appellate issues, and
asserted entitlement to relief. After an
adverse District Court ruling, use Rule
24(a)(5). The Cover Story’s ‘‘Notices of
Appeal and Postjudgment Deadlines’’
subsection explains the conditions,
documents, and filing period.

File the notice of appeal on time even
while payment or in forma pauperis status
remains unresolved. Promptly comply with
fee-related instructions. Prior status does
not continue automatically in every case,
and failure to address fees can result in
dismissal.

Extend the § 2255
appeal period
Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)

For excusable neglect or good cause, move
in the District Court before the standard
appeal period expires or no later than 30
days afterward.

The extended deadline may be no later
than the later of 30 days after the standard
deadline or 14 days after entry of the order
granting the extension.

The court may allow less time. Filing the
motion does not itself extend the deadline.
These civil-appeal provisions do not govern
a direct criminal appeal.

Reopen the § 2255
appeal period
Appellate Rule
4(a)(6); Civil Rule
77(d); Parrish; Bowles

If you did not receive Civil Rule 77(d) notice
within 21 days after entry of the judgment
or order, reopening requires a timely
motion and no prejudice to another party.
Move by the earlier of 180 days after entry
or 14 days after receipt of that notice.

Keep your address current and preserve
envelopes and prison mail records. Move in
the District Court. Reopening provides 14
days from entry of the reopening order to
appeal. If no adequate notice of appeal was
filed, file one within that period.

An otherwise adequate notice of appeal
filed after the original deadline but before
reopening need not be filed again. Parrish.
Independently check the statutory 14 days;
a mistaken court order allowing longer
does not make a later notice timely. Bowles.

New criminal
judgment after relief
Appellate Rule 4(b);
Hadden; Clark

A defendant’s direct appeal from a new
criminal judgment ordinarily has a 14-day
notice period after entry. An appeal from
denial of other § 2255 claims still requires a
COA.

File the notice of appeal with the district
clerk. Distinguish challenges to the new
sentence, denied collateral claims, and
remedy choice. For excusable neglect or
good cause, Rule 4(b)(4) allows an
extension of no more than 30 days after the
standard criminal-appeal deadline.

The remedy-choice COA issue divides
circuits; Hadden does not control
everywhere. The civil 60-day period does
not govern this criminal appeal. Rule 4(b)
has no reopening provision comparable to
Rule 4(a)(6).

Appeal challenging
correction instead of
resentencing
Clark; McDonald (1st
Cir. 2026)

Check circuit law on whether a COA is
required. Under Clark, show that reasonable
jurists could debate whether the remedial
choice itself violated a constitutional right.

Explain the constitutional defect in the
remedial choice. Identify the applicable
appeal procedure and deadline under
controlling circuit law.

The constitutional violation already
remedied does not itself support a COA. A
claimed misunderstanding of § 2255(b)
discretion alone is insufficient. McDonald
assumed that a COA was required without
resolving the circuit split.

Prison deposit of a
notice of appeal
Appellate Rule 4(c)(1)

The prison mailbox rule applies to a notice
appealing the § 2255 decision or a new
criminal judgment. Deposit it by the
applicable deadline, using the designated
legal-mail system if available.

Include a signed, dated § 1746 declaration
stating the deposit date and that first-class
postage is being prepaid. Retain the notice
and mailing records.

Identify whether the civil or criminal appeal
period governs. A COA request does not
excuse an untimely notice of appeal.

Rule 59(e) and
qualifying Rule 60
motions
Civil Rules 6(b)(2), 59,
60, 87; Appellate Rule
4(a)(4)

Rule 59(e) ordinarily requires filing within
28 days after entry of the judgment. A
timely Rule 59 motion or qualifying Rule 60
motion filed within the Rule 59 period shifts
the civil appeal clock to disposition of the
last qualifying motion.

Calendar from entry of judgment. Check
both substance and timing before relying
on a postjudgment motion to change the
appeal deadline.

Ordinary extensions are prohibited. Rule 87
allows only a limited exception during a
Judicial Conference-declared civil-rules
emergency and by court order. A merits
claim labeled Rule 60 can be successive.

Event or filing

Rule or period

What you should do or preserve

Critical trap

Rule 60(b)’s own
requirements
Civil Rules 60(b)---(c),
6(b)(2), 87; Kemp;
Coney Island

A genuine procedural challenge must be
filed within a reasonable time, including a
Rule 60(b)(4) motion asserting that the
judgment is void. Grounds (1)---(3) ordinarily
also have a one-year outer limit after entry
of the challenged judgment or order, or the
date of the proceeding. Filing within a year
can still be unreasonably late.

Identify the applicable ground. A judge’s
legal error is a mistake under (1). Relief
under (6) requires extraordinary
circumstances and a basis outside (1)---(5); it
cannot be used to evade the one-year limit
for (1)---(3). See Section 6 for the distinction
between genuine procedural challenges
and successive claims.

Ordinary extensions are prohibited; Rule 87
permits a limited exception during a
Judicial Conference-declared civil-rules
emergency and by court order. A motion
filed after the time allowed by Rule 59 may
satisfy Rule 60’s own limits but does not
reset the deadline to appeal the underlying
judgment.

Circuit COA denial
and Supreme Court
review
Hohn; Sup. Ct. R. 10,
12---13, 39

Certiorari review is discretionary. The
petition ordinarily is due within 90 days
after entry of the COA denial. A timely
appellate rehearing petition moves the
start to rehearing denial or the subsequent
judgment if rehearing is granted.

Check circuit reconsideration or rehearing
rules. An unrepresented prisoner seeking in
forma pauperis status (permission to
proceed without prepaying specified court
costs) may file one original petition and
motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis; supporting-paper and service
requirements remain.

The mandate date does not control. Not
every request for further consideration
changes the certiorari deadline. Distinguish
this review from the notice needed to
appeal the District Court’s decision.

4. Obtain and Protect the Evidence You Need
Tie every request to a pleaded claim and explain what the material would prove. Discovery, a hearing, counsel, transcripts, and other services require separate showings.
Need or procedure

What you should request or preserve

Governing limit

Former counsel’s file and
witness evidence

Send a dated request identifying needed file materials; retain
the response. For omitted witnesses or investigation, identify the
lead, expected evidence, and effect on the relevant decision or
outcome. Include available sworn support. For an investigation
claim, also identify what counsel knew, the available leads, the
inquiry made, and why stopping or omitting investigation was
unreasonable.

File entitlement depends on applicable law and professional
rules. If a statement is unavailable, explain known facts and
efforts to obtain it. Do not let the missing material cause an
avoidable late filing.

Presentence report and
statement of reasons

Request staff-supervised review in the central file and identify
relevant portions in the pleading. Optional BOP Form BP-A0757
asks the court to obtain and consider the documents without
requiring attachment.

BOP Program Statement 1351.05 ordinarily prohibits sentenced
prisoners from possessing copies. Preserve and seek access
through the permitted procedures.

Discovery
Rule 6; Bracy

Explain good cause with specific allegations. State reasons,
include proposed interrogatories or requests for admission,
identify documents, and explain their expected proof of a
pleaded claim.

Discovery requires court authorization. A general desire to
search for possible claims does not supply the required
connection to facts supporting relief.

Record expansion and
disputed affidavits
Rule 7; Witherspoon

Submit relevant letters, records, exhibits, sworn interrogatory
answers, or affidavits. Address each material disagreement with
counsel’s affidavit using sworn facts and available support;
request authentication where needed.

The opposing party must have an opportunity to admit or deny
correctness. Counsel’s affidavit is not automatically conclusive;
disagreement alone does not compel a hearing.

Evidentiary hearing
§ 2255(b); Rule 8

Identify material factual disputes the record does not
conclusively resolve and explain how the facts, if proved, would
support relief.

A hearing is required unless the motion, files, and records
conclusively show no entitlement. Plea declarations carry a
strong presumption of truth; vague, conclusory, palpably
incredible, or conclusively refuted allegations may be rejected.

Appointed counsel and
services
§§ 3006A, 3599; Section
2255 Rules 6(a), 8(c)

Establish financial eligibility and why the interests of justice
support counsel. For qualifying movants, appointment is
required when effective discovery needs counsel or a hearing is
warranted. Appointed counsel may seek necessary services
under § 3006A(e).

There is generally no constitutional right to collateral counsel.
Without a constitutional right to counsel in the proceeding,
deficient performance by § 2255 counsel does not itself establish
a constitutional ineffective-assistance claim. An ordinary
omission by § 2255 counsel does not create a ground for
authorization under § 2255(h). Section 3599 separately provides
counsel and reasonably necessary services for financially unable
§ 2255 movants challenging death sentences. Services have
their own requirements.

Need or procedure

What you should request or preserve

Governing limit

Government-paid
transcripts
§ 753(f); MacCollom

Establish in forma pauperis status and obtain judicial
certification that the proceeding is not frivolous and the
transcript is needed to decide the issue.

The absence of a § 2255 filing fee does not automatically entitle
you to free transcripts. Identify the claim and the needed
transcript’s relevance.

Attorney-client
communications
Pinson

Identify the communications placed at issue by the
ineffective-assistance allegation. Consider claim-specific limits
on production and a protective order under controlling circuit
law.

The claim may imply a privilege waiver. The scope of waiver and
protective relief depends on the claim and circuit; do not assume
either unlimited disclosure or automatic protection.

5. Match the Claim to the Required Prejudice Showing
These standards answer different questions. First establish the violation’s elements; then apply any separate harmless-error rule the claim requires.
Claim or posture

Required showing or governing rule

Proof or distinction that matters

Ineffective assistance
generally
Strickland

Ordinarily prove objectively unreasonable representation and a
reasonable probability of a different result absent counsel’s error,
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

A different result need not be more likely than not. Proof that
counsel erred does not by itself prove prejudice. Assess counsel’s
conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time, with a strong
presumption of professional reasonableness. A strategy label
does not excuse an unreasonable failure to investigate.

Deficient advice
inducing a guilty plea
Hill v. Lockhart; Lee

Show a reasonable probability that you would have rejected the
plea and insisted on trial, and address whether that choice would
have been rational.

Use contemporaneous evidence; a later assertion alone is
insufficient. On Lee’s particular record, the Court found prejudice
despite a weak trial defense because the plea decision depended
on avoiding deportation.

Lost favorable plea offer
Frye; Lafler

Show a reasonable probability that you would have accepted the
offer, the prosecution would not have withdrawn it, the court
would have accepted its terms, and the conviction or sentence
would have been less severe.

Preserve offer terms, expiration, counsel’s communications, and
your response. Success does not automatically entitle you to the
offered sentence.

Ineffective assistance at
sentencing
Glover

Connect deficient performance to a reasonable probability of a
shorter prison term.

No minimum amount of added imprisonment is necessary, but
the connection to a longer sentence still requires proof.

Omitted appellate issue
Smith v. Robbins

Show unreasonable omission of the issue and a reasonable
probability of success on appeal.

Identify the omitted issue and explain how it could have changed
the appeal’s result. Counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous
issue. A forfeited appeal presents a different inquiry; see the next
row.

Forfeited appeal
Flores-Ortega; Garza

When counsel disregards an instruction to file and forfeits the
appeal, Garza presumes prejudice despite a waiver. If deficient
performance costs an appeal you otherwise would have taken,
the remedy is a renewed opportunity to appeal without proving
the appeal would have succeeded.

Preserve the instruction and counsel’s response. Consultation is
required when counsel has reason to think a rational defendant
would want an appeal or you reasonably demonstrated interest.
An enforceable waiver still limits appealable issues. Check
§ 2255(f)(4) timing in Section 3A.

Suppressed favorable
trial evidence
Brady; Bagley; Kyles

Materiality requires a reasonable probability of a different result
with disclosure. Assess the suppressed evidence collectively.

Materiality is part of the constitutional violation. Once a
Brady/Bagley violation is established, there is no additional Brecht
harmless-error inquiry.

Ordinary constitutional
trial error
Chapman; Brecht;
Bentley

For preserved error on direct review, the prosecution must
establish harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. For § 2255
collateral review, identify circuit law; Brecht’s
substantial-and-injurious-effect standard has broad circuit
acceptance.

The circuit decisions the Cover Story describes do not establish a
uniform national § 2255 rule.

Structural error and an
ineffective-assistance
claim
Weaver

A preserved structural error ordinarily receives no harmless-error
review. When the claim is counsel’s failure to object, structural
classification does not necessarily dispense with prejudice.

Weaver did not presume prejudice for the unpreserved
public-trial violation there and reserved other structural errors.
Timeliness and successive-motion restrictions still apply.

6. Rules and Consequences That Must Not Be Confused
Use these comparisons before selecting a remedy, abandoning a claim, or preparing a later filing. Several requirements can apply at once.
Rule or issue A

Rule or issue B

Decisive difference

Federal § 2255
review

State-prisoner
§ 2254 review

Federal motions do not require state exhaustion or § 2254(d) deference, and do not carry over Pinholster’s state-record
restriction or § 2254(e)(2). Federal timing, proof, waiver, default, and successive-motion limits still govern.

Guilty plea itself

Express waiver of
review

Class held on direct appeal that the plea alone did not foreclose the constitutional challenge to the statute of
conviction presented there. Examine any express waiver separately. For a § 2255 claim, timeliness, default, and other
collateral-review requirements still apply.

Justice
Department
waiver policy

Judicial
enforceability

U.S. Department of Justice policy directs prosecutors not to seek ineffective-assistance waivers. For agreements
predating October 14, 2014, it directs them to decline enforcement when counsel was prejudicially ineffective or the
claim raises a serious debatable issue. Identify the policy when asking the Government not to enforce such a waiver. It
does not itself invalidate the waiver or bind the court. Justice Manual § 9-16.330.

Claim omitted on
direct review

Issue already
decided on direct
appeal

An omitted claim may require cause and actual prejudice or an innocence gateway. An issue already decided on direct
appeal ordinarily cannot be relitigated under § 2255 without a recognized basis, such as a qualifying intervening
change in law. A new label alone is insufficient. A distinct ineffective-assistance claim must establish counsel’s
constitutional failure. Check controlling circuit law. Nyhuis; Davis (1974).

Direct Fourth
Amendment
exclusion claim

Counsel’s
handling of
suppression

The Cover Story identifies disagreement over applying Stone to § 2255: the Sixth Circuit extends it, while the Eighth
Circuit declined to apply the categorical bar to the certified issue before it. A distinct Sixth Amendment
ineffective-assistance claim has its own elements. Check circuit law.

Does a prior
conviction qualify
as a federal
predicate?

Was the prior
conviction itself
invalid?

Predicate qualification concerns the federal sentence. Daniels generally bars § 2255 attacks on state convictions whose
sentences expired and that were used for an Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement when available review was not
pursued or failed; its failure-to-appoint-counsel exception is subject to default rules. Deficient advice is not that
exception. Invalidating the prior conviction ordinarily requires using any review procedure still available for that
conviction; a later vacatur does not automatically change the federal sentence.

Advisory-Guidelin
es mistake

Constitutional or
statutory-maximu
m error

Beckles rejects vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines; Folk’s rejection of a stand-alone advisory career-offender
claim does not resolve formerly mandatory Guidelines or independent constitutional claims. Identify the error’s actual
source, effect, and controlling circuit rule.

Actual-innocence
gateway

§ 2255(h)(1)
evidence ground

The Schlup gateway uses new reliable evidence and the more-likely-than-not/no-reasonable-juror standard. Section
2255(h)(1) requires newly discovered evidence that, if proved and considered with all the evidence, establishes by clear
and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found guilt. The federal text does not contain the
state provision’s due-diligence and ‘‘but for constitutional error’’ clauses.

Factual innocence

Legal insufficiency

A missing element in the original proceeding does not prove factual innocence; the Government may present
admissible evidence outside the plea record, and Bousley requires actual innocence of any more serious charge the
Government did not pursue in plea bargaining.

Innocence
gateway

Freestanding
innocence claim

A gateway permits consideration of a separate claim despite an otherwise applicable procedural bar. A freestanding
claim seeks relief because of innocence itself. The Supreme Court has neither recognized nor ruled out that
independent ground for collateral relief. Neither label replaces § 2255(h)’s requirements for a successive motion.

Proper Civil Rule
59(e) or Civil Rule
60(b) motion

Successive merits
claim

A proper, timely Civil Rule 59(e) motion remains part of the initial proceeding. A genuine Civil Rule 60(b)
procedural-defect challenge is distinct from a new claim or attack on a merits determination; the latter is successive. A
genuine procedural challenge must still satisfy Rule 60’s requirements; see Section 3B. A request to add a merits claim
omitted by collateral counsel ordinarily remains a successive claim, even if labeled a procedural challenge. Apply
controlling circuit law.

Entry of a new
criminal judgment

Change to the
conviction being
challenged

Magwood reserved review of undisturbed convictions; consult controlling circuit law. In re Augustin (6th Cir. 2026)
recognized a new criminal judgment after § 2255 vacatur and sentence correction, even without full resentencing. The
first § 2255 challenge to that judgment could reach unchanged convictions without § 2255(h) authorization. In re
Lampton (5th Cir. 2012) found that the unchanged conviction and life sentence remained governed by the original
criminal judgment; the later judgment disposed of the civil § 2255 proceeding. Timeliness and other requirements
remain separate.

Rule or issue A

Rule or issue B

Decisive difference

Later sentence
reduction

New judgment
permitting a fresh
collateral
challenge

A reduction under § 3582(c)(2) or Criminal Rule 35(b) does not restart § 2255(f)(1). White v. United States (7th Cir. 2014)
also held that the Guidelines reduction did not remove successive-motion restrictions. Murphy addressed Rule 35(b)
finality. Examine the reduction’s authority and circuit law; ‘‘amended judgment’’ alone establishes neither a new filing
period nor permission for another motion.

Claim created by a
later event

Later discovery of
old evidence or a
new statutory
interpretation

Under the later-arising-claim rule recognized by several circuits, a state-court vacatur entered after the initial § 2255
proceeding ends can create a nonsuccessive claim if the vacated conviction was used to enhance the federal sentence,
even though the federal judgment is unchanged. Stewart; In re Jones (6th Cir. 2022). Later discovery of evidence about
earlier events or a favorable statutory interpretation does not itself make a motion nonsuccessive. Check controlling
circuit law. A nonsuccessive motion needs no § 2255(h) authorization but must satisfy timeliness and the other
requirements for relief.

New
constitutional rule
under § 2255(h)(2)

New statutory
interpretation

The constitutional ground requires a previously unavailable rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court. A statutory
interpretation, even retroactive on initial collateral review, does not satisfy that ground. Under Jones v. Hendrix,
exclusion by § 2255(h) does not authorize the same successive statutory claim under § 2241.

Bowe’s removal of
the old-claim bar

Automatic
permission to
relitigate

Section 2244(b)(1)’s bar on previously presented claims does not govern § 2255. Section 2255(h) still has only two
grounds; timeliness remains. Bowe did not resolve potential common-law restrictions on repetitive claims. Bowe
permits Supreme Court certiorari review of a federal authorization denial but reserved whether § 2244(b)(3)(E) bars
panel or en banc rehearing. Check circuit practice.

Appellate
authorization

Actual eligibility
and merits relief

Authorization rests on a preliminary showing and permits filing. Bowe explained that § 2255(h) does not incorporate
§ 2244(b)(4)’s District Court reexamination command; the Eleventh Circuit nevertheless required actual-eligibility
review under circuit precedent in In re Bowe (11th Cir. 2026). That order decided neither timeliness nor merits.

Relief from one
judgment
component

Immediate release
or a shorter total
term

Section 2255(b) permits discharge, resentencing, a new trial, or correction. Full resentencing is not invariably required.
Resentencing may increase a remaining count within lawful limits and leave total custody unchanged. Due process
bars retaliatory sentencing; a vindictiveness presumption is conditional.

Vacatur of a guilty
plea

Dismissed charges
remain
unavailable

Under § 3296, the court must reinstate timely filed counts dismissed under a court-approved plea agreement when the
plea is vacated on the defendant’s motion and the Government moves within 60 days after the vacatur order becomes
final. Defenses other than limitations remain.

A pending case or
proposed
amendment

An operative rule
or authorization
ground

Maxwell v. Dinis (§ 2241 time-credit transfer claims) and Guerrero v. Johnson (meaning of ‘‘previously unavailable’’
under § 2244(b)(2)(A), language shared by § 2255(h)(2)) are pending cases discussed in the Cover Story; neither
supplies a holding. The proposed § 2255(h)(3) is not an operative third authorization ground. Verify later
developments before relying on a change.

7. Preservation, Filing, and Appeal Checklist
Review this checklist for every ground and complete each applicable task. Tasks that apply equally to all grounds
need not be repeated. Claim/Ground: ____________________. Checking an item does not establish entitlement
to relief.
Action to confirm or complete
Define each claim and preserve the record



Identify the judgment or custody practice, the facts, the legal ground, and the remedy. Confirm § 2255 cognizability, custody at filing,
and the sentencing court.



Read the guilty plea, direct-appeal waiver, and collateral-review waiver separately. Identify written and circuit-recognized exceptions
and any unfulfilled Government promise.



Preserve plea and sentencing records, objections, lawfully available sentencing materials, lost-offer communications, and proof of an
instruction to appeal.



If you instructed counsel to appeal, promptly request the filed notice and confirm filing with the district clerk. Preserve dated inquiries
and responses for any lost-appeal claim and its § 2255(f)(4) calculation.

Action to confirm or complete


For a claim omitted on direct review, analyze default and the specific basis for excusing it: cause and actual prejudice, or factual
innocence. Apply Massaro separately to ineffective assistance.



Identify any issue already decided on direct appeal and the recognized basis, if any, for reconsideration under controlling law.
Calculate the deadline and obtain supporting material



Test all four § 2255(f) dates for each claim. Preserve the judgment, appellate docket, rehearing and certiorari records, and any amended
judgment or resentencing. Use Section 3A’s direct-review paths; do not substitute the mandate date.



For a later sentence reduction, check its legal authority and controlling circuit law. Do not assume a reduced term or an ‘‘amended
judgment’’ restarts the year or permits another § 2255 motion; see Section 6.



For a newly recognized right, use the initial Supreme Court recognition date. For new facts, document discovery and due diligence.



Document diligence and any extraordinary circumstance that prevented filing. Do not assume another proceeding or an extension
request stops the year.



Request identified counsel-file materials and witness evidence promptly. If necessary material is missing, describe its relevance and
efforts to obtain it while continuing timely preparation.



Seek permitted staff-supervised access to the presentence report or statement of reasons; consider BP-A0757 for court use. Meet § 753(f)
separately for government-paid transcripts.
Prepare and file the motion



Use AO 243 or the local equivalent; state every available ground with concrete facts and requested relief; sign under penalty of perjury.
Use separate motions for separate judgments. Do not delay filing past the deadline while waiting for a form; see Section 3B.



Verify local filing instructions, including copies. No filing fee is required. Use the legal-mail system when available and retain the motion,
declaration, postage evidence, and mailing records.



Respond to a proposed Castro recharacterization and preserve any objection to a missing safeguard. Before amending, address Civil Rule
15 permission and each added claim’s timeliness separately.
Develop proof and protect review



Tie Rule 6 discovery to a pleaded claim and explain good cause and expected proof. Identify any need for Rule 7 expansion or
authentication.



Answer material factual disagreements in counsel’s affidavit with sworn facts and available support. For a hearing, identify disputes not
conclusively resolved that could establish relief.



Establish financial eligibility for counsel and the applicable appointment rule. Address services and transcripts separately; consider
claim-specific privilege protection.



File timely, specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Calculate the 14-day objection period and any Civil Rule 6(d)
addition under Section 3B, and follow its Section 2255 Rule 3(d) instructions for filing objections from prison.



Prove the claim’s own prejudice standard and explain the requested remedy. Assess remaining counts, resentencing exposure, and
possible reinstatement of dismissed charges.



For a full resentencing, preserve rehabilitation, education, treatment, and work records; check whether the authorized scope permits
consideration.
Appeal and classify later filings

Action to confirm or complete


Identify the precise ruling appealed: denial of § 2255 claims, lawfulness of a new criminal judgment, or remedy choice. Check the
applicable 60-day or 14-day route and circuit-specific COA rules. For a remedy-choice appeal, address the COA showing described in
Section 3B under controlling circuit law.



Request a COA identifying the constitutional issues and addressing every independently sufficient ground for denying the claim under
the applicable Slack standard. Request expansion under circuit procedures if necessary. File the notice with the district clerk without
waiting for the certificate. Address the appeal fee or in forma pauperis status under Section 3B without delaying the notice of appeal.



Keep the court informed of address changes and preserve envelopes and mail records. If the § 2255 appeal deadline may have been
missed, immediately check Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)’s extension and Rule 4(a)(6)’s reopening conditions and deadlines in Section 3B.



For either type of notice of appeal, use Appellate Rule 4(c)(1): deposit by the applicable deadline, use the legal-mail system if available,
and preserve the declaration and mailing proof.



Calendar any Civil Rule 59(e) motion within the standard 28-day period. Rely on a changed civil appeal deadline only if the postjudgment
motion qualifies. For a genuine Rule 60(b) procedural challenge, check its own grounds and deadlines in Section 3B and the classification
rules in Section 6.



After a circuit COA denial, check permitted reconsideration or rehearing and calendar the Supreme Court Rule 13 certiorari deadline.
Verify the filing, in forma pauperis, and service requirements described in Section 3B.



Before withdrawal, refiling, or a later motion, examine the prior disposition, judgment, substance, any later event creating the claim, and
controlling circuit law; ‘‘without prejudice’’ and a pending appeal are not automatic exemptions.



After § 2255 relief, review the vacatur order and resulting criminal judgment. Determine under controlling circuit law whether a later
motion would be the first § 2255 challenge to a new judgment and require no § 2255(h) authorization. See Section 6.



For a successive motion, obtain Court of Appeals authorization first; establish the applicable § 2255(h) ground and timeliness
independently.



For a new-rule claim, address retroactivity and the initial-recognition deadline; if the motion is successive, also satisfy § 2255(h)(2)’s
Supreme Court requirement. Check later developments without treating pending cases or proposals as law.

8. Your Deadline Worksheet
Use a separate copy or sheet of paper for each claim. Claim/Ground: ____________________. Record every
event affecting the calculation under the headings below. Continue on another sheet as needed. Then identify the
applicable starting date and filing target. This worksheet does not extend any deadline.
The Cover Story’s Josef K. example: appellate judgment September 1, 2015; no rehearing or certiorari petition; finality November 30, 2015; standard § 2255(f)(1) deadline November 30, 2016; legal-mail deposit November 29,
2016. The anniversary method accounts for the intervening leap day; his deposit was one day early. Use your own
docket and claim-specific facts.
Event

Source document

Event date

Governing rule

Calculated deadline

Event

Source document

Event date

Governing rule

Calculated deadline

Possible starting dates and supporting facts under § 2255(f):
(1) Finality, (2) Unlawful governmental impediment removed, (3) Qualifying newly recognized right, (4) Supporting facts discoverable through diligence. Identify the latest applicable starting date for this claim and explain why
that provision applies.
Complete the calculation for the claim identified above. Continue on another sheet as needed.
Calculated deadline before any claimed equitable tolling: ____________________
Claimed tolling period, extraordinary circumstance, diligence, and supporting proof: ____________________
Earliest plausible deadline and planned legal-mail deposit date: ____________________
Actual deposit date, declaration, and retained mailing proof: ____________________
A later trigger must satisfy its statutory conditions. Claimed tolling requires support and may be rejected. Do not
add time automatically because another proceeding or records request is pending.

Mailing Declaration for a § 2255 Motion
For a § 2255 motion, adapt this declaration only to facts you can truthfully state: “I declare under penalty of perjury
that on [date] I deposited this motion in [institution]’s legal-mail system with first-class postage prepaid.” Date and
sign it. Retain a copy and available mailing proof. If the institution has no legal-mail system, identify the internal
mailing system actually used. For a notice of appeal, follow the separate wording and requirements of Appellate Rule
4(c)(1).
This mailing declaration does not replace the motion’s own penalty-of-perjury signature.
Final Check. Use the Guide with the preceding Cover Story. Verify current law, the governing circuit’s decisions,
the sentencing court’s rules and forms, and every case-specific deadline before filing or abandoning a claim.