Legal Document

537 U.S. 522 CLAYv.UNITED STATES. No. 01-1500. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 13, 2003. Decided March 4, Petitioner Clay was convicted arson and a drug offense in Federal District Court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions on November 23, 1998, that court's mandate issued December 15, 1998. did not file petition for writ certiorari. time which he could have done so expired 90 days after entry the Appeals' judgment 69 issuance its mandate. One year Appeals mandate, exactly one seeking certiorari expired, filed motion postconviction relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. Such motions are subject to one-year limitation generally runs from "the date conviction becomes final." 2255, ¶ 6(1). Relying precedent, stated when federal prisoner does seek certiorari, final 2255 purposes upon court appeals' Because more than date, denied it as barred. affirmed. Held: For purpose starting clock 2255's period, expires filing contesting appellate affirmation conviction. Pp. 527-532. (a) Finality has long-recognized, clear meaning context: attaches setting this affirms merits direct review or denies expires. See, e. g., Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 383, 390. presumes "that Congress expects statutes be read conformity with Court's precedents," States Wells, 519 482, 495, unvarying understanding finality collateral would ordinarily determine "becomes final" 527-528. (b) Supporting Circuit's judgment, invited amicus curiae urges different determinant, relying verbal differences between 2244(d)(1), governs petitions habeas corpus by state prisoners. Where 6(1), refers simply final," 2244(d)(1)(A) speaks became conclusion expiration such review." When "Congress includes particular language section statute but omits another same Act, is presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion." Russello States, 464 16, 23. Invoking maxim recited Russello, asserts cannot mean thing "became 2244(d)(1)(A); reading two synonymous, maintains, render superfluous words "by review" — found only latter provision. If explicitly incorporated first 2244(d)(1)(A)'s formulations, might indeed question soundness interpreting implicitly incorporate second trigger well. As written, however, leaves undefined. hardly warrants decision hold petitioner tighter constraint governed 2244(d)(1)(A). An unqualified term, indicates, calls surely no less broad pinpointed one. Moreover, can readily comprehend why appropriate spell out "final" Section 2244(d)(1) In context, bare reference suggested assessments should made state-law rules. Those rules may differ general rule vary State State. qualifying make determined uniform rule. prisoners; within system there comparable risk varying guard against. 528-531. (c) 2263—which prescribes period certain death-sentenced prisoners—does alter First, amicus' reliance 2263 encounters essentially problem 2244(d)(1)(A): neither events 2263(a) identifies possible points "affirmance sentence Thus, reasoning negative implication justify 6(1)'s begins run at those times rather other. Second, ties applicable sentence," while "The presumption . grows weaker each difference formulation provisions inspection." Columbus Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 424, 435-436. 531-532. 30 Fed. Appx. 607, reversed remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion unanimous 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 2 Thomas Goldstein, appointment Court, 808, argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Amy Howe. 3 Matthew D. Roberts were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben. 4 David W. DeBruin, invitation 974, brief support below. Elaine J. Goldenberg. 5 JUSTICE GINSBURG 6 A This case concerns limitation. It presents narrow recurring courts appeals divided: defendant prosecution takes an unsuccessful appeal conviction, next become post-conviction (1) issues affirming or, instead, (2) later, expires? 7 accord consistent context review, weight lower authority, we reject triggering date. hold, 8 * 1997, Erick Cornell distribution cocaine base Northern Indiana. On convictions. That See Rules App. Proc. 40(a)(1) 41(b) (when rehearing filed, 21 judgment). petitioned February 22, 1999, see Rule 13(1), 9 2000—one expired—Clay pursuant vacate, set aside, correct sentence. prescribed "[a] 1-year limitation" "run[ning] latest of" four specified dates. 6. Of dates, relevant case, generality cases, first: 10 Gendron 154 F. 3d 672, 674 (CA7 1998) (per curiam), "when circuit , `final' appeal." Pet. Cert. 8a. 11 declined Clay's "invitation reconsider our holding Gendron," although acknowledged Gendron's "construction represents minority view." 609 (2002). "Bowing stare decisis," expressed "reluctan[ce] overrule [its own] recently-reaffirmed precedent without guidance Court." Ibid. 12 Fourth agreed interpretation Torres, 211 836, 838-842 (2000) mandate). Six Courts parted ways Circuits. These that, prisoners like who do following affirmance their convictions, defendant's expires.1 To secure uniformity application constraint, granted 957 (2002), now reverse judgment.2 II 13 variously defined; many legal terms, precise depends context. Typically, claim preclusion district disassociates itself leaving nothing instance save execution judgment. Quackenbush Allstate Ins. Co., 517 706, 712 (1996); Restatement (Second) Judgments Comment b (1980). other purposes, stage. example, determinations Speedy Trial Act 1974, 18 3161 et seq., now-repealed version Criminal Procedure 33, several held attends Brief Amicus Curiae Invitation 22-28 (hereinafter DeBruin Brief) (citing cases). contrast, "[t]he order sought reviewed, (or equivalent local practice)." 13(3). 14 Here, relief, meaning: 390 (1994); Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 321, n. (1987); Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 887 (1983); Johnson, 457 537, 542, (1982); Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 622, (1965). "we presume 495 (1997), 15 parallel statutory provision, 8-20. Sections formulated, reshaped Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty 1996. §§ 101, 105, 110 Stat. 1217, 1220. Prior limitations requests habeas-like relief. Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 265 (1986); Nahodil, 36 323, 328 (CA3 1994). Like establishes running Three triggers closely track corresponding portions Compare 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) 6(2)-(4). But where review."3 16 Act," recognized, "it 23 (1983) (quoting Wong Kim Bo, 472 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972)). review"—words We give effect discrete wording prescriptions, urges, if adopt rule: starts Id., 36.4 17 stronger argument formulations second, text Had provided forth 2244(d)(1)(A), qualify all. Using disjunctive phrases follow think plain, concerned provision Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO), 1961 directed forfeiture "any interest [a defendant] acquired ... violation [the Act]." 1963(a)(1). urged construction acquired." Rejecting argument, observed succeeding subsection, 1963(a)(2), reached any enterprise" conducted RICO's proscriptions. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) At point, referred invoked amicus. supra, 528. "in narrowed way affected comparison subsections, said, "fortified" approved unmodified S., 22-23 (internal omitted); id., ("Had intended restrict 1963(a)(1) enterprise, presumably expressly immediately subsection (a)(2)."). 19 Far supporting constricted Russello's tends favor. term—here final"—Russello one—here, specification 20 Government urge, 22; Reply 7-8, Cf. Artuz Bennett, 531 (an "properly filed" 2244(d)(2) delivery acceptance compliance [state] laws governing filings"). also submits "reinforces" 20; accord, 3d, 840. Chapter Title 180-day "final tolled, "from until disposition files capital last resort 2263(b)(1). 22 find 529-531. 845 (Hamilton, dissenting). presumption—that presence phrase absence reveals Congress' design —grows 435-436 24 criminal defendants Under rule, timely filed. therefore reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 25 ordered. Notes: SeeDerman 298 34, 39-42 (CA1 2002); Kapral 166 565, 567-577 1999); Gamble, 208 536, 2000) curiam); Garcia, 210 1058, 1059-1061 (CA9 2000); Burch, 202 1274, 1275-1279 (CA10 Kaufmann 282 1336, 1337-1339 (CA11 2002). Agreeing position advanced majority ruled question, joins urging argue asamicus curiae, Mr. DeBruin's able advocacy permits us decide satisfied been fully aired. uniformly interpreted "direct encompass F.3d, 40-41; Williams Artuz, 237 147, 151 (CA2 2001); 575; Hill Braxton, 277 701, 704 (CA4 Ott 192 510, 513 Bronaugh Ohio, 235 280, 283 (CA6 Anderson Litscher, 281 674-675 Smith Bowersox, 159 345, 347-348 (CA8 1998); Bowen Roe, 188 1157, 1159 Locke Saffle, 1269, 1273 Bond Moore, 309 F.3d 770, 774 Although recognizing presented case," Tr. Oral Arg. 27,amicus suggests even cases 27-28, 36-38, 41-42. recognizes, 41, "have concluded contested either merits," Hicks, 380, 387 (CADC

Classification Label: 0