I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3035 
To establish streamlined procedures for collateral review of mixed petitions, 
amendments, and defaulted claims, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JUNE 22, 2005 
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To establish streamlined procedures for collateral review of 
mixed petitions, amendments, and defaulted claims, and 
for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 
this Act is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short Title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Mixed petitions. 
Sec. 3. Amendments to petitions. 
Sec. 4. Procedurally defaulted claims. 
Sec. 5. Tolling of limitation period.
Sec. 6. Harmless error in sentencing. 
Sec. 7. Unified review standard. 
Sec. 8. Appeals. 
Sec. 9. Capital cases. 
Sec. 10. Clemency and pardon decisions. 
Sec. 11. Ex parte funding requests. 
Sec. 12. Crime victims’ rights. 
Sec. 13. Technical corrections. 
Sec. 14. Application to pending cases. 
SEC. 2. MIXED PETITIONS. 
Section 2254(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs 
(A) and (B) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(A) the applicant— 
‘‘(i) has exhausted the remedies available 
in the courts of the State by fairly presenting 
and arguing the specific Federal basis for each 
claim in the State courts; and 
‘‘(ii) has described in the application how 
the applicant has exhausted each claim in the 
State courts; or 
‘‘(B)(i) each unexhausted claim for relief in the 
application would qualify for consideration on the 
grounds described in subsection (e)(2); and 
‘‘(ii) the denial of such relief is contrary to, or 
would entail an unreasonable application of, clearly 
established Federal law, as determined by the Su-
preme Court of the United States.’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(4) Any unexhausted claim that does not qualify for 
consideration on the grounds described in this subsection 
shall be dismissed with prejudice.’’. 
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PETITIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2244 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(e)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus 
may be amended once as a matter of course before the 
earlier of the date on which an answer to the application 
is filed or the expiration of the 1-year period described 
in subsection (d). 
‘‘(2) Except as provided under paragraph (1), an ap-
plication may not be amended to modify existing claims 
or to present additional claims, unless the modified or 
newly presented claims would qualify for consideration on 
the grounds described in subsection (b)(2).’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2242 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended in the third un-
designated paragraph by striking ‘‘in the rules of proce-
dure applicable to civil actions’’ and inserting ‘‘under sec-
tion 2244(e)’’. 
SEC. 4. PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED CLAIMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2254 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as 
subsections (i) and (j), respectively; and 
(2) by adding after subsection (g) the following: 
‘‘(h)(1) A court, justice, or judge shall not have juris-
diction to consider an application for a writ of habeas cor-
pus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judg-
ment of a State court with respect to any claim that was 
found by the State court to be procedurally barred, or any 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to such 
claim, unless— 
‘‘(A) the claim would qualify for consideration 
on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2); or 
‘‘(B) the State, through counsel, expressly 
waives the provisions of this paragraph. 
‘‘(2)(A) A court, justice, or judge shall not have juris-
diction to consider any claim that the State court denies 
on the merits and on the ground that the claim was not 
properly raised under State procedural law, or any claim 
of ineffective assistance of counsel related to such claim, 
unless the claim would qualify for consideration on the 
grounds described in subsection (e)(2). 
‘‘(B) A court, justice, or judge shall not have jurisdic-
tion to consider any claim that is otherwise subject to 
paragraph (1) and that was reviewed by the State court 
for plain error, fundamental error, or under a similarly
heightened standard of review, unless the claim would 
qualify for consideration on the grounds described in sub-
section (e)(2). 
‘‘(3) The State shall not be required to answer any 
claim described in paragraph (1) or (2) unless the court 
first determines that the claim would qualify for consider-
ation on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2). 
‘‘(4) If a court determines that a State court order 
denying relief on procedural grounds is ambiguous as to 
which claims were found to be procedurally barred, the 
court shall resolve any perceived ambiguity, if necessary, 
by examining the full record in the State court. 
‘‘(5) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on 
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment 
of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any 
claim under paragraph (1) or (2) unless the denial of such 
relief is contrary to, or would entail an unreasonable appli-
cation of, clearly established Federal law, as determined 
by the Supreme Court of the United States.’’. 
(b) LIMITATION.—Section 2244(d)(2) of title 28, 
United States Code, as amended by section 3, is amended 
by adding at the end the following: ‘‘An application that 
was otherwise improperly filed in State court shall not be 
deemed to have been properly filed because the State court
exercises discretion in applying a rule or recognizes excep-
tions to that rule.’’. 
SEC. 5. TOLLING OF LIMITATION PERIOD. 
Section 2244(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘judgment 
or’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) In this section, an application for State post- 
conviction or other collateral review— 
‘‘(A) is pending from the date on which the ap-
plication is filed with a State court until the date on 
which the same State court rules on that applica-
tion; and 
‘‘(B) is not pending during any period of time 
between the date on which a State court rules on 
that application and the date on which the applica-
tion or a related application is filed, or is otherwise 
presented, for adjudication to such State court on 
rehearing authorized by State law or to a higher 
State court. 
‘‘(4) The period of limitation under paragraph (1) 
may be tolled, suspended, or extended only as provided 
under this subsection.’’.
SEC. 6. HARMLESS ERROR IN SENTENCING. 
Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, as 
amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(k) A court, justice, or judge shall not have jurisdic-
tion to consider an application with respect to an error 
relating to the applicant’s sentence or sentencing that has 
been found to be harmless or not prejudicial in State court 
proceedings, unless a determination that the error is not 
structural is contrary to clearly established Federal law, 
as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
States.’’. 
SEC. 7. UNIFIED REVIEW STANDARD. 
Section 107(c) of the Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (28 U.S.C. 2261 note) is 
amended by striking ‘‘Chapter 154 of title 28, United 
States Code (as amended by subsection (a))’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘This title and the amendments made by this title’’. 
SEC. 8. APPEALS. 
(a) APPELLATE TIME LIMITS.—Section 2254 of title 
28, United States Code, as amended by sections 4 and 
6, is further amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(l) In review by a court of appeals of a district 
court’s determination of an application for a writ of ha-
beas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 
the judgment of a State court, the following shall apply:
‘‘(1) A timely filed notice of appeal from an 
order issuing a writ of habeas corpus shall operate 
as a stay of that order, pending final disposition of 
the appeal. 
‘‘(2) A court of appeals shall decide the appeal 
from an order granting or denying a writ of habeas 
corpus— 
‘‘(A) not later than 300 days after the date 
on which the brief of the appellee is filed or, if 
no timely brief is filed, the date on which such 
brief is due; or 
‘‘(B) if a cross-appeal is filed, not later 
than 300 days after the date on which the ap-
pellant files a brief in response to the issues 
presented by the cross-appeal or, if no timely 
brief is filed, the date on which such brief is 
due. 
‘‘(3)(A) If a petition is filed for a panel rehear-
ing or rehearing by the court of appeals en banc fol-
lowing a decision by a panel of a court of appeals 
under paragraph (2), the court of appeals shall de-
cide whether to grant the petition not later than 90 
days after the date on which the petition is filed, un-
less a response is required.
‘‘(B) If a response to a petition is required 
under subparagraph (A), a court of appeals shall de-
cide whether to grant the petition not later than 90 
days after the date on which the response is filed or, 
if no timely response is filed, the date on which the 
response is due. 
‘‘(C) If a panel rehearing is granted, the panel 
shall make a determination of the appeal on rehear-
ing not later than 120 days after the date on which 
the order granting a panel rehearing is entered. No 
second or successive petition for panel rehearing 
shall be allowed. 
‘‘(D) If rehearing en banc is granted, the court 
of appeals shall make a final determination of the 
appeal not later than 180 days after the date on 
which the order granting rehearing en banc is en-
tered. 
‘‘(4) If a court of appeals fails to comply with 
the requirements of this subsection, the State may 
petition the Supreme Court, or a justice thereof, for 
a writ of mandamus to enforce the requirements of 
this subsection. 
‘‘(5) The time limitations in this subsection 
shall apply in all proceedings in a court of appeals 
on review of a district court’s determination of an
application for a writ of habeas corpus, including 
any such proceedings in a court of appeals following 
a remand by the Supreme Court for further pro-
ceedings. 
‘‘(6) In proceedings following remand in a court 
of appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph (2) 
shall begin on the date the remand is ordered if fur-
ther briefing is not required in the court of appeals. 
If there is further briefing in the court of appeals, 
the time limit specified in paragraph (2) shall begin 
on the date on which a responsive brief is filed or, 
if no timely responsive brief is filed, from the date 
on which such brief is due. 
‘‘(7) The failure of a court to meet or comply 
with a time limitation under this subsection shall not 
be a ground for granting relief from a judgment of 
conviction or sentence, nor shall the time limitations 
under this subsection be construed to entitle a cap-
ital applicant to a stay of execution, to which the ap-
plicant would otherwise not be entitled, for the pur-
pose of litigating any application or appeal.’’. 
(b) 
FINALITY
OF
DETERMINATION.—Section 
2244(b)(3)(E) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ‘‘the subject of a petition’’ and all that follows
and inserting the following: ‘‘reheard in the court of ap-
peals or reviewed by writ of certiorari.’’. 
SEC. 9. CAPITAL CASES. 
(a) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—Chapter 154 of title 28, 
United States Code, is amended by striking section 2264 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘§ 2264. Scope of Federal review 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 
(b), a court, justice, or judge shall not have jurisdiction 
to consider any claim relating to the judgment or sentence 
in an application covered under this chapter. 
‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—A court, justice, or judge has ju-
risdiction to consider a claim under this chapter if the 
claim would qualify for consideration on the grounds de-
scribed in section 2254(e)(2). An application shall not be 
granted with respect to any such claim unless the denial 
of relief is contrary to, or would entail an unreasonable 
application of, clearly established Federal law, as deter-
mined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’’. 
(b) TIME LIMITS.—Section 2266(b)(1)(A) of title 28, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘180 days 
after the date on which the application is filed’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘450 days after the date on which the application is 
filed, or 60 days after the date on which the case is sub-
mitted for decision, whichever is earlier’’.