Opinion ID: 2824572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Section 2255 Motion

Text: Winkles timely filed, by submitting to prison authorities for mailing, his original section 2255 motion on May 7, 2004.1 ER 16, 431–41. Winkles’s original motion raised six grounds for relief, based on ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of Fifth Amendment due process. ER 434–38. The district court denied Winkles’s motion on November 18, 2005 in an opinion that thoroughly discussed and rejected each of Winkles’s arguments. ER 15–30. Winkles did not receive this order in a timely fashion. He wrote to the district court on February 4, 2007 inquiring about the status of his section 2255 motion. ER 410. On June 20, 2007, the district court received a letter from Winkles stating again that he had not received the court’s decision and asking for a “chance to respond” to it. ER 409. The government 1 The time for filing a section 2255 motion is one year from the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). This period includes the 90 days in which a defendant may petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003). Under this rule, the motion was timely from the date of the expiration of Winkles’s right to seek review at the Supreme Court, May 15, 2003. 6 UNITED STATES V. WINKLES concedes for purposes of appeal that Winkles did not receive the order denying his motion prior to this date. In September 2007, Winkles filed a request to receive a copy of the order denying his section 2255 motion, which the district court granted by minute order. ER 401–03, 13. Winkles later declared that he did not receive the court’s opinion until October 1, 2007. ER 12. Winkles also declared that he had previously sent a motion to amend his section 2255 motion that was evidently not received by the court. Id.