Source: https://trac.syr.edu/laws/28/28USC02255.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:23:49+00:00

Document:
sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
this section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 967; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec.
incorporated in H.R. 4233, Seventy-ninth Congress.
undesignated pars. as subsecs. (a) to (h), respectively.
Congress" for "court of the United States" in first par.
set out as a note under section 2074 of this title.
note under section 2074 of this title.
3.          Filing the Motion; Inmate Filing.
5.          The Answer and the Reply.
9.          Second or Successive Motions.
10.         Powers of a Magistrate Judge.
and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody.
426, set out as a note under section 2074 of this title.
test the legality of his detention."
in the statute "to dispose of the party as law and justice require"
incrimination, and burden of proof.
remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available in such situations.
. . . laws of the United States," the language of 28 U.S.C. Sec.
the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.' "
limited scope of this remedy, see advisory committee note to Sec.
no changes to Rule 1.
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.
person authorized to sign it for the movant.
Stat. 1334; Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 26, 2004, eff.
federal government is the movant's adversary of record.
present custody without the use of artificial pleading devices.
situated the court which rendered the sentence under attack.
which has caused the courts difficulty.
one is proper under the circumstances and decide it on its merits.
For a Sec. 2255 motion construed as a rule 35 motion, see Heflin v.
Sec. 2255 motion, see Moss v. United States, 263 F.2d 615 (5th Cir.
1959); Jones v. United States, 400 F.2d 892 (8th Cir. 1968), cert.
878 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 947 (1970).
Duggins v. United States, 240 F.2d 479, 483 (6th Cir. 1957).
v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962). The prisoner brought a Sec.
constitutionally invalid in any other respect.
[Rule 35] provides for the correction of an "illegal sentence"
sentence" under any normal reading of the English language.
does not clarify the intent of the rule or its relation to Sec.
of situations. In United States v. Lewis, 392 F.2d 440 (4th Cir.
and under Hill v. United States it was not an illegal sentence.
which amounted to "exceptional circumstances" embraced in Sec.
judge has sentenced out of a misapprehension of the law.
by an unfulfilled promise of the prosecutor to recommend leniency.
Cir. 1970), allowed a prisoner to challenge his sentence under Sec.
Criminal Secs. 581-587 (1969, Supp. 1975).
Subdivision (b). The amendment takes into account 28 U.S.C. Sec.
available. Carter v. Clark, 616 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1980). The Sec.
2255 forms have been revised accordingly.
intended, except as described below.
behalf of the movant. See generally Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S.
seeking relief, or by someone acting on behalf of that person).
supplement it with the local form.
applies to motions filed under Sec. 2255, see 28 U.S.C. Sec.
that conforms to Rule 2(b).
be printed using a word processing program.
requirement that the motion follow the prescribed form.
Subd. (d). Pub. L. 94-426, Sec. 2(4), inserted "substantially"
motion must be filed with the clerk.
together with a notice of its filing.
U.S.C. Sec. 2255 para. 6.
may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Sec.
There is no filing fee required of a movant under these rules.
continuation of the criminal case whose judgment is under attack.
court it is filed in forma pauperis.
McCune v. United States, 406 F.2d 417, 419 (6th Cir. 1969).
that the reduced fee was exclusive to habeas petitions.
by state prisoners, there is a major distinction between the two.
rights to which an indigent is entitled in the course of a Sec.
the process to allow quicker disposition of these motions.
note to rule 3 of the Sec. 2254 rules.
intended, except as indicated below.
limitations to motions filed under Sec. 2255, see 28 U.S.C. Sec.
to file a corrected motion within the one-year limitation period.
Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1270-72 (11th Cir. 1999).
concerning the availability of equitable tolling.").
motion to a judge under the court's assignment procedure.
dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.
a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.
the judge and the government after the motion is properly filed.
misled by false allegations as to what occurred.
by other courts dealing with the issue.
Corpus, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1206-1208 (1970).
that it will be difficult for him to review it objectively.
for witnesses and records to be produced.
Halliday v. United States, 380 F.2d 270 (1st Cir. 1967).
has been some questioning of the effectiveness of this procedure.
See Developments in the Law - Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv.L.Rev.
motion. He no longer need order them incorporated for that purpose.
Rule 4 has its basis in Sec. 2255 (rather than 28 U.S.C. Sec.
judgment and oppose the motion.
committee note to rule 4 of the Sec. 2254 rules.
motion may be a motion to dismiss or some other response.
motion unless a judge so orders.
whether the moving party received an evidentiary hearing.
and rule 5 indicates what its contents should be.
Cir. 1961); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711, 712 (5th Cir.
1964); Scott v. United States, 349 F.2d 641, 642, 643 (6th Cir.
1965); Schiebelhut v. United States, 357 F.2d 743, 745 (6th Cir.
the movant to the government's answer. As under rule 5 of the Sec.
committee note to rule 9.
some reason the judge does not already have them under his control.
for the government to supply them for him anyway.
of the Sec. 2254 rules.
permit) the respondent to file a motion.
modified to read that the government is not required to "respond"
who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A.
party's attorney to attend the deposition.
See the advisory committee note to rule 6 of the Sec. 2254 rules.
rules for Sec. 2255 motions.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subd.
are set out in the Appendix to this title.
considered as part of the record.
admit or deny their correctness.
the parties themselves to provide the information.
changed by removing the reference to the "merits" of the motion.
other than a party may authenticate the materials.
Rule 7 to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
(b) Reference to a Magistrate Judge. A judge may, under 28 U.S.C.
copies of the proposed findings and recommendations on all parties.
of counsel under Sec. 3006A at any stage of the proceeding.
(As amended Pub. L. 94-426, Sec. 2(6), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat.
1335; Pub. L. 94-577, Sec. 2(a)(2), (b)(2), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat.
2730, 2731; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 26, 2004, eff.
information in making decisions concerning the defendant's liberty.
e.g., United States v. White, 342 F.2d 379, 382, n.4 (4th Cir.
1959). The amendment to Rule 8 grants explicit authority to do so.
statement before the witness actually presents oral testimony.
Procedure 5(b), which allows mailing the copies.
no changes to Rule 8, as published for public comment.
evidentiary hearing be held or that the petition be dismissed.
hearing shall be conducted" for "and shall conduct the hearing."
interest of justice so require.
by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, para. 8.
Unlike the statutory provisions on habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. Secs.
with this issue, is in conflict.
judicata, and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable.
Cir. 1962); Conners v. United States, 431 F.2d 1207, 1208 (9th Cir.
1970); Sturrup v. United States, 218 F.Supp. 279, 281 (E.D.N.Car.
1963); and Banks v. United States, 319 F.Supp. 649, 652 (S.D.N.Y.
requirement of diligence which is in reality a time limitation.
merit some consideration * * *."
time affects the good faith and credibility of the moving party."
Malone v. United States, 299 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1962), cert.
274 (7th Cir. 1971); and United States v. Wiggins, 184 F. Supp.
expressed in United States v. Bostic, 206 F.Supp. 855 (D.C.Cir.
1962), are equitable in nature.
See also United States v. Wiggins, 184 F.Supp. at 676.
In accord see Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.
1964), on remand, 345 F.2d 225 (1st Cir. 1965).
deception practiced upon him by his attorney.
In a similar vein are United States v. Moore and United States v.
Bostic, supra, and United States v. Wiggins, 184 F. Supp. at 676.
diligence requirement for ascertaining possible grounds for relief.
government, the time bar is inoperative.
comparable one included in the Sec. 2254 rules.
committee note to rule 9 of the Sec. 2254 rules.
Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, para. 6.
filing a second or successive motion.
no changes to Rule 9, as published.
under these rules, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636.
(As amended Pub. L. 94-426, Sec. 2(12), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat.
for a discussion fully applicable here as well.
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
such duties," after "rule of the district court".
extend the time to appeal the original judgment of conviction.
(As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Apr. 26, 2004, eff.
Sec. 2255 action does not extend the time.
(1st Cir. 1950), a case rejecting the argument that because Sec.
they are criminal in nature.
no changes to Rule 11, as published.
respects the restrictions in Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2) (see Sullivan v.
United States, 198 F.Supp. 624 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)), rule 12 is needed.
no changes to Rule 12.
text, are set out in the Appendix to this title.
any of the following sources?
b. Rent payments, interest or dividends?
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _____.
account to his credit at the ____ institution where he is confined.
(As amended Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 26, 2004, eff.
both sets of official forms the list of possible grounds of relief.
The Committee made additional minor style corrections to the forms.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.