(2) finding, after a hearing if necessary, that the prisoner 
rejected the offer of counsel and made the decision with 
an understanding of its legal consequences; or (3) denying 
the appointment of counsel upon a finding that the pris-
oner is not indigent. 
‘‘(d) No counsel appointed pursuant to subsections 
(b) and (c) to represent a State prisoner under capital 
sentence shall have previously represented the prisoner at 
trial or on direct appeal in the case for which the appoint-
ment is made unless the prisoner and counsel expressly 
request continued representation. 
‘‘(e) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel 
during State or Federal collateral postconviction pro-
ceedings in a capital case shall not be a ground for relief 
in a proceeding arising under section 2254 of this chapter. 
This limitation shall not preclude the appointment of dif-
ferent counsel, on the court’s own motion or at the request 
of the prisoner, at any phase of State or Federal 
postconviction proceedings on the basis of the ineffective-
ness or incompetence of counsel in such proceedings. 
‘‘§ 2257. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits 
on stays of execution; successive peti-
tions 
‘‘(a) Upon the entry in the appropriate State court 
of record of an order under section 2256(c), a warrant 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
or order setting an execution date for a State prisoner 
shall be stayed upon application to any court that would 
have jurisdiction over any proceedings filed under section 
2254. The application must recite that the State has in-
voked the postconviction review procedures of this chapter 
and that the scheduled execution is subject to stay. 
‘‘(b) A stay of execution granted pursuant to sub-
section (a) shall expire if— 
‘‘(1) a State prisoner fails to file a habeas cor-
pus petition under section 2254 within the time re-
quired in section 2258, or fails to make a timely ap-
plication for court of appeals review following the de-
nial of such a petition by a district court; 
‘‘(2) upon completion of district court and court 
of appeals review under section 2254 the petition for 
relief is denied and (A) the time for filing a petition 
for certiorari has expired and no petition has been 
filed; (B) a timely petition for certiorari was filed 
and the Supreme Court denied the petition; or (C) 
a timely petition for certiorari was filed and upon 
consideration of the case, the Supreme Court dis-
posed of it in a manner that left the capital sentence 
undisturbed; or 
‘‘(3) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in 
the presence of counsel and after having been ad-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
vised of the consequences of his decision, a State 
prisoner under capital sentence waives the right to 
pursue habeas corpus review under section 2254. 
‘‘(c) If one of the conditions in subsection (b) has 
occurred, no Federal court thereafter shall have the au-
thority to enter a stay of execution or grant relief in a 
capital case unless— 
‘‘(1) the basis for the stay and request for relief 
is a claim not previously presented in the State or 
Federal courts; 
‘‘(2) the failure to raise the claim is (A) the re-
sult of State action in violation of the Constitution 
or laws of the United States; (B) the result of the 
Supreme Court recognition of a new Federal right 
that is retroactively applicable; or (C) based on a 
factual predicate that could not have been discovered 
through the exercise of reasonable diligence in time 
to present the claim for State or Federal 
postconviction review; and 
‘‘(3) the facts underlying the claim would be 
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evi-
dence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable 
fact finder would have found the petitioner guilty of 
the underlying offense or eligible for the death pen-
alty under State law. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
‘‘(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal district court or appellate judge shall have the au-
thority to enter a stay of execution, issue injunctive relief, 
or grant any equitable or other relief in a capital case on 
any successive habeas petition (or other action which fol-
lows the final determination of a first habeas corpus peti-
tion) unless the court first determines the petition or other 
action does not constitute an abuse of the writ. This deter-
mination shall be made only by the district judge or appel-
late panel who adjudicated the merits of the original ha-
beas petition (or to the district judge or appellate panel 
to which the case may have been subsequently assigned 
as a result of the unavailability of the original court or 
judges). In the Federal courts of appeal, a stay may issue 
pursuant to the terms of this provision only when a major-
ity of the original panel or majority of the active judges 
determines the petition does not constitute an abuse of 
the writ. 
‘‘§ 2258. Filing of habeas corpus petition; time re-
quirements; tolling rules 
‘‘Any petition for habeas corpus relief under section 
2254 must be filed in the appropriate district court within 
one hundred and eighty days from the filing in the appro-
priate State court of record of an order under section 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2256(c). The time requirements established by this section 
shall be tolled— 
‘‘(1) from the date that a petition for certiorari 
is filed in the Supreme Court until the date of final 
disposition of the petition if a State prisoner files 
the petition to secure review by the Supreme Court 
of the affirmance of a capital sentence on direct re-
view by the court of last resort of the State or other 
final State court decision on direct review; 
‘‘(2) during any period in which a State pris-
oner under capital sentence has a properly filed re-
quest for postconviction review pending before a 
State court of competent jurisdiction; if all State fil-
ing rules are met in a timely manner, this period 
shall run continuously from the date that the State 
prisoner initially files for postconviction review until 
final disposition of the case by the highest court of 
the State, but the time requirements established by 
this section are not tolled during the pendency of a 
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (1); and 
‘‘(3) during an additional period not to exceed 
sixty days, if (A) a motion for an extension of time 
is filed in the Federal district court that would have 
proper jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
a habeas corpus petition under section 2254; and 
(B) a showing of good cause is made for the failure 
to file the habeas corpus petition within the time pe-
riod established by this section. 
‘‘§ 2259. Certificate of probable cause inapplicable 
‘‘The requirement of a certificate of probable cause 
in order to appeal from the district court to the court of 
appeals does not apply to habeas corpus cases subject to 
the provisions of this chapter except when a second or suc-
cessive petition is filed. 
‘‘§ 2260. Application to State unitary review proce-
dure 
‘‘(a) For purposes of this section, a ‘unitary review’ 
procedure means a State procedure that authorizes a per-
son under sentence of death to raise, in the course of di-
rect review of the judgment, such claims as could be raised 
on collateral attack. The provisions of this chapter shall 
apply, as provided in this section, in relation to a State 
unitary review procedure if the State establishes by rule 
of its court of last resort or by statute a mechanism for 
the appointment, compensation and payment of reasonable 
litigation expenses of competent counsel in the unitary re-
view proceedings, including expenses relating to the litiga-
tion of collateral claims in the proceedings. The rule of 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
08:57 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\PICKUP\H3.IH
H3
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with BILLS