Amicus Curiae Brief — Clay v. United States
Supreme Court brief2003
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
‘ ,
WULieme 1 ay
No. 01-1500 sc It 1002
eb ; URPICE iw
IN THE wits."
Supreme Court of the Anited States
ERICK CORNELL CLAY.
Petitioner.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURITAE
IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW
DAVID W. DEBRUIN
Counsel of Record
ELAINE J. GOLDENBERG
MONICA R. PINCIAK
JENNER & BLOCK, LLC
601 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 639-6000
November 14, 2002 Counsel for Amicus Curiae
WILSON-EPES PRINTING Co., INC. — (202) 789-0096 ~— WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PORES GE MPEDEEEEEED coc ccesccecccccsccesess iil
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........cscccccccceee l
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............-----++55- 3
SEE 6-ns us ddbens obs dees svbeccccodédsesees 8
I. A COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE
OF 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND 28 U.S.C. § 2244
ESTABLISHES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND THE WORDS “BECOMES FINAL”
IN § 2255 TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR REVIEW. ... 8
Il. INMOST CONTEXTS AND FOR MOST
PURPOSES, A JUDGMENT OF A COURT
“BECOMES FINAL” WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR
PURTHER REVIEW. .......ciccccccccccess 22
Ill. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS OF
INCONGRUITY AND IMPRACTICALITY
DO NOT UNDERMINE THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT OF
PUNE “Arc datndectssdesicpescagccoces 36
A. This Court’s Definition Of “Final” For
“Purposes Of Retroactivity Analysis” Is
Atypical And Based On Considerations
That Are Fundamentally Different From
Those At Issue Here. ................- 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
Page
B. The Differences In Collateral Review Of
State And Federal Convictions, And
Indeed The Griffith/Teague Cases, Support
The Different Meanings Of § 2255 And
yo Sree ree 41
C. The Remaining Arguments Of
Impracticality Advanced By The Parties
Also Do Not Favor A Different Result. .. 46
CURLIN 5 oo ccccscsnsvcesscepenenen seen 49
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
American Trucking Ass ‘ns v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167
DT iiie ds enon censesctetedececenes 37, 38
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) ......... 16
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438
tp hilteeeeeeengaccocwececcecces 8, 10, 15
Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) .......... 10
Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410
Peta hee eeteehebeseeaceécceceece 10, 42
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ....... 39
Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262 (1940) .......... 33
Brockett v. Brockett, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 238 (1844) ....31
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections,
i cee ecahcdodbaccececsce 33
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) ............ 10
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677
ese eee eecenesebeetecvesccces 5, 28
Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354 (10th Cir.
eee eieecddeedbass cocccuceese 25
Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383 (1994) ....... 6, 37, 39
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 122 §. Ct. 2045
i eek heehee den ecesccebcoocecccces 14
City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) .... 14
Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (1950) ..........55.. 42
-iv-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
Department of Banking of Nebraska v. Pink,
. 8 PE err rer 32, 33
Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S.
SEGUE one bv iccscodediecessutecndceoescest 11
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2901)... ... 4, 8,17, 18
Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3« 1001 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 649 (2001) ...... 2... 6. 6.. 36
FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.,
PS ET Ghc dh ousisesbcndesetenesds 29
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963) .............05. 43
Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.
ae Pee eee 44
Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (1995) ..............4.. 16
Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593 (1927) .......... 14
Gendron v. United States, 154 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1113 (1999) .. 2,9, 11, 19
General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S.
Pas 00c00stecsseetentanesaésnneds 10, 11
Giesberg v. Cockrell, 288 F.3d 268 (Sth Cir. 2002),
petition for cert. filed, 71 U.S.L.W. 3283 (U.S.
Sept. 27, 2002) (No. O2-S22) ... ccc cccccccceces 26
Glick v. Ballentine Produce, Inc., 397 F.2d 590
SG GE co ccsnacstencdbacatauuedecsensd« 27
Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395
GD nccvécoocsvecdcedsnesndanebedessubanel 17
-V-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v.
Knudson, 122 S. Ct. 708 (2002) ............... 7,41
Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc.,
«Ge EEE SabnUéhevedececcseccesésees 8
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314
DE gee audedeekeddsndoussctéens 6, 37, 38, 40, 43
Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation,
PEP IPED cecctcccccedcscotescccsodes 38
Harrison v. United States, 191 F.2d 874 (Sth Cir.
PEED odecdecendcs Sdedocceocnssedoeudecctéens 25
Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) .... 4, 11,17
Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) ...... 5, 28
Horton v. United States, 244 F.3d 546 (7th Cir.
ED conthenecseosdenepenoveseenses TTirre 26
INS v. Cardoza-Fonesca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) ....... 10
ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
Se ED cocctbiccoccccvesccecsee 32, 33
Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565 (3d Cir.
SEED 6nenbbedlesvereccaveceneseneecss 3, 4,9, 15
Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969) ...... 42
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) .......... ll
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200
EIDE adbcondes déebeubedeGobcts cecccccecece 19
King v. Cook, 287 F. Supp. 269 (N.D. Miss. 1968) ... . 43
Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (1996) ........... 43
-vi-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence
& Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) ........ 14
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997) .......... 16, 17
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) ........... 37
Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989).......... 7,41
Market Street Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission
of California, 324 U.S. 548 (1945) ......... 29, 30, 31
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) ....... 29, 37
Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) ......... 32, 33
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) ....... 28
Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151
SG, SE ds cececcceascsscchasséventbepoce 34
Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151 (1926) ...... 31, 33
O'Connor v. United States, 133 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.
BRED odvbcccacctceresasenbonsssdptebeceecss 44
Raines v. New York, 992 F. Supp. 160 (N.D.N.Y.
BEE k kcodevecesvindacedeustebesetcabestuce 43
Romero v. United States, 28 F.3d 267 (2d Cir.
SEED oc ccdwntocecedsseannsuse coetcsncseneces 25
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) ............55. 22
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) ... 4, 10, 15
Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 (1969) ............. 29
Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1606 (2002) .............. 18
-vii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Sorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury, 475 U.S. 851
DE dcadhaxdueséensededutntaets codbeeeuss 13
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) .......... 6, 37, 39
United Savings Ass'n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood
Forest Associates, Lid., 484 U.S. 365 (1988) ........ g
United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999) ... 46
United States v. Biaggi, 823 F. Supp. 1151
(S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 48 F.3d 1213 (2d Cir.
1994) (unpublished table decision) ............ 24, 25
United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.
Dt ih dence cnacbbbndahebosseodcsdeseeds 14, 18
United States v. Burch, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1249
(D. Kan. 1988), rev ‘d, 202 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.
SU Ghddkdedeaedssséteneteoncadeebseceseses 9
United States v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993) ... 27
United States v. Cook, 705 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1983) 23, 24
United States v. Dayton, 981 F.2d 1200 (11th Cir.
SE iS RIOR Be iin 25
United States v. Ellicott, 223 U.S. 524(1912) ..... 31, 33
United States v. Felton, 811 F.2d 190 (3d Cir. 1987) .. . 26
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) . . . 23, 41, 42
United States v. Garcia, 210 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.
PE UO bwercehedesddbccddesccccsceccccecons 18
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) ........ 10
United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994) ..... 16
,
-Viii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
United States v. Granza, 427 F.2d 184 (Sth Cir.
SEED ob coccccseseeaeeheseseuebesoenoncetsdes 25
United States v. Gross, 614 F.2d 365 (3d Cir. 1980) ... 25
United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (1964) ....... 32, 33
United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 (1991)........... 32
United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975 (11th Cir.
SED cvvccccccccéedanepesbeldtadeodesanécese 45
United States v. Kington, 875 F.2d 1091 (Sth Cir.
SEED cvcevcedacensbceeeswcnasdessanssidetees 26
United States v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240 (11th Cir.
BE cddbédcocenonndevabadocdninsd s466600¢0 27
United States v. Long, 900 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir.
EE onccccovdsetedsethoonssdoussedesbetoes 27
United States v. Lussier, 219 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.
EE bUSoceccccekeusenmeen endsbcacedece 22, 24
United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528 (1955) ...... 11
United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923)..... 5,28
United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768 (1979) ....... 13
United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988) . . . 26
United States v. Robertson, 810 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir.
BED obvbdnvcncsdisbbdssscccnsveteekeceucts 26
United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398 (7th Cir.
EEE casvocbiccdsdévcedanesdedssnstucneerenis 44
United States v. Ross, 654 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1981) . 26, 27
-iX-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
United States v. Scalf, 760 F.2d 1057 (10th Cir.
Se ehbbklatbduhvess bie pcesisoeneseseees 26, 27
United States v. Segers, 271 F.3d 181 (4th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1331 (2002) ..... 25, 26
United States v. Spector, 888 F.2d 583 (8th Cir.
Pednsbscuddncdcodsbedededeconcceboccsces 24
United States ex rel. Stevens v. McCloskey,
239 F. Supp. 419 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 345 F.2d
305 (2d Cir. 1965), rev'd on other grounds,
PPE UadUbbeobcescceesbeseceoss 43
United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350 (Sth Cir.
DR cddh cease aedehedsddadcécccdceevceocess 26
United States v. Torres, 211 F.3d 836 (4th Cir.
PL en dehcddeesdaeddusccecceces 9, 11, 19, 20, 21
United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957) ......... 12
United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043 (2002) ........ 14
United States v. Willis, 202 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir.
i schdipbideideehetapbensohbedeececeee os 26
Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299
EE ne ee 26
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) ........... 42
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc.,
PT ace odecbceetecoedecdcesace 45
STATUTES AND RULES
18 U.S.C. § 31G1(GQ2) 0... ccc eee 26
-X-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
SE UBC. BSOGEED oo cicccccdccedvccensecacenes 26
TRUBS, OOO 6 i cvccccdeccdcccsvcvedeses passim
SDD ccd donacecebvedecssoneteaeus 3, 42
PRUBE.. OFS ccccdcvcccccecccecvescsbace passim
» Lt ll >. PP rrrrrrrerrrrr rrr erty 20, 21
28 U.S.C. § Z4IMENANG) «0. cesccccccccsccccvces 29
i Oe ik ccvedunnesssbetdecestiasrnenns 30
DG, OL BED. ocvsdidentgestedswosschesinutas 25
Ge GED vi ccendacasebeees dqacceweseses 25
Fed. R. App. P. 35(C) 0... cc ccccccccceveccecees 30
, FY 8S BP 30
Fed. R. App. P. 40fa1) . 0. nc ccccccccccccccccces 30
Fed. R. Age. P. 48QR) 2... ccc cccccccccccsvcccoess 30
Fed. R. App. P. 41(6) ..... cc ccccccccccccccsccens 30
Bet, Be Gin PEG bo cv ck ckbtccdeccbogcunecarsa 30
Bint, Be, Gh GD nc dco vcvsweevesevsvacevacess 30
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 (version in existence prior
—). 6 ee eer demeuitaKe dé 22
Rule 1 Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
for the United States District Courts advisory
QueNMMNNSS MOTD . ow ce ccccocvevccccecaseves 42
-xi-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - continued
Page
LEGISLATIVE MATERIAL
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-518 (1996), reprinted in
SLE oc ncccdctipancddessonss 16
eS ere 16
S. Rep. No. 98-226 (1983) ................. 16, 22, 23
MISCELLANEOUS
Committee on the Administration of the Criminal
Law, Judicial Conference of the United States,
Guidelines to the Administration of the Speedy
Trial Act of 1974, as amended (rev. Dec. 1979) . . 34, 35
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
EE add pckas inwards sunnééeadiancbio es 19, 28
No. 01-1500
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
ERICK CORNELL CLAY
Petitioner,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW’
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In 1997, a jury in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana convicted petitioner of arson and
distribution of cocaine. See Pet. App. 2a. The district court
sentenced petitioner to 137 months in prison and three years of
supervised release. See id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the
conviction and sentence on November 23, 1998, and, in the
' Amicus curiae was appointed by the Court on July 29, 2002, to brief
and argue this case in support of the judgment below. See 71 U.S.L.W.
3115 (2002). This brief was wholly authored by amicus curiae, and no
person or entity other than JENNER & BLOCK, LLC made a monetary
contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.
4.
absence of any petition for rehearing, issued its mandate on
December 15, 1998. See id.
Petitioner did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Accordingly, under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Gendron
v. United States, 154 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam),
cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1113 (1999), the issuance of the mandate
triggered the start of the one-year period in which petitioner
could permissibly file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
which begins running on “the date on which the judgment of
conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 para. 6(1); see
Gendron, 154 F.3d at 674 (stating that “federal prisoners who
decide not to seek certiorari with the Supreme Court will have
the period of limitations begin to run on the date this court
issues the mandate in their direct criminal appeal”).
Contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s clearly established rule,
petitioner filed a § 2255 motion on February 22, 2000, one year
and sixty-nine days after the mandate issued. The government
opposed the motion solely on the ground that it was
“completely meritless,” see Gov’t Resp. to 2255 Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, at 1 (N.D. Ind. filed
Apr. 24, 2000), but the district court directed the parties to
“show cause why [petitioner’s § 2255] petition should not be
dismissed as untimely,” and ultimately dismissed the motion on
that ground. Pet. App. 5a, 7a-9a. The court also refused to
excuse the late filing under the doctrine of equitable tolling
(which petitioner had not raised). See id.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court pointed out that
it had previously instructed petitioner to address the merits of
certain claims in his brief, and that he had failed to follow this
instruction, addressing only the issue of the timeliness of his
motion. Pet. App. la-6a. Nevertheless, the court determined
that the timeliness issue was “dispositive of the case.” Jd. The
court acknowledged that the Circuits had split on the issue, but
.%
declined to revisit its holding in Gendron. Therefore, because
petitioner had filed his § 2255 motion “sixty-nine days too
late,” the court found that “the district court was correct when
it denied the motion.” Jd. at 6a.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Congress established that, except in circumstances not
applicable here, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be
brought within one year of “the date on which the judgment of
conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 para. 6(1)
(emphasis added). Congress did not include in § 2255 aclause
it included in an analogous statute of limitations enacted at the
same time, governing petitions for habeas corpus relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Congress required that petitions under
§ 2254 generally must be brought within one year from “the
date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
A. Basic principles of statutory interpretation dictate that,
when Congress simultaneously enacts two markedly similar
provisions, but then chooses significantly different language to
govern one aspect of those provisions, Congress intended that
difference for a reason. The natural interpretation of the
language of the statute is that, whereas the limitation period in
§ 2244 begins to run only after “the conclusion of direct review
or the expiration of the time for seeking such review,” the
limitation period in § 2255 is not dependent upon the expiration
of the time for review — which, indeed, is the ordinary rule; in
most contexts and for most purposes, the finality of a judgment
is not dependent on the expiration of the time for review. This
is the conclusion reached by the Courts of Appeals for the
Seventh and Fourth Circuits and by several district courts —
and, indeed, this is the position previously advocated on appeal
by the United States, see Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565,
&
569 (3d Cir. 1999). Thus, petitioner’s judgment of conviction
in this case became final when the Court of Appeals issued its
mandate, the last judicial act in connection with petitioner’s
direct appeal.
Because Congress used very different language to define
two otherwise analogous (and virtually identical) limitation
provisions in § 2244 and § 2255, the proper canon of
construction that must be applied in this case is set forth in
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983): “[W]here
Congress includes particular language in one section of a
statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is
generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Jd. at 23
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This canon is
deeply entrenched in this Court’s precedents, and has been
applied in a wide variety of statutory contexts — including, on
two previous occasions, the very statute at issue in this case.
See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001); Hohn v. United
States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998). Any other reading of § 2255 and
§ 2244 is impossible, because it would render superfluous
much of the language in § 2244.
The parties struggle to identify a different (and more
favorable) canon of construction, and to distinguish Russello,
but without success. The parties inexplicably invoke the
principle that identical words used in different parts of the
same statute are intended to have the same meaning, but the
simple answer is that Congress quite clearly did not use
“identical words” in § 2244 and § 2255. The government also
directs its fire at the expressio unius est exclusio alterius
principle, but that is not the canon at issue here.
Principally, the parties place great reliance on a claim that
application of the Russello principle here proves too much,
because the words “the conclusion of direct review” also appear
a.
in § 2244 but not in § 2255. But it would have made no sense
for Congress to have written the statute to say that the
limitation period in § 2244 runs from “the date on which the
judgment became final or the expiration of the time for seeking
direct review.” Instead, § 2244 sets up a comparison of finality
triggers, and this requires the two alternate triggers (“the
conclusion of direct review” and “the expiration of the time for
seeking such review”) to be placed side by side and held up for
examination.
B. The application of the Russello principle in this case
is strongly enforced by the fact that the ordinary and established
meaning of when a judgment “becomes final” does not include
the expiration of time for review. Rather, and particularly with
regard to the commencement of statutes of limitation and other
time bars, it is broadly established that a judgment “becomes
final” when the Court of Appeals issues its mandate in
connection with the direct appeal as of right, without regard to
the possibility of further discretionary proceedings, unless a
stay of the mandate is obtained. This is the established rule
under the former version of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
33 (which, significantly, Congress considered as a model with
respect to an early formulation of the § 2255 time limitation),
the Speedy Trial Act (which uses the identical “becomes final”
language), and other limitation statutes. This Court may
presume that Congress was familiar with this settled law. See
Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 9 (1999); Cannon v.
University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-98 (1979); United
States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 186 (1923).
Indeed, the rule that a judgment becomes final upon the
issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals, without
regard to the expiration of the time to file a petition for
certiorari, is also consistent with the ordinary operation of
judgments. Judgments of all kinds of all courts, trial and
appellate, become “final” without regard to the expiration of
i
the time for review. The determination of the Court of Appeals
in this case is unremarkable: the court simply concluded that
petitioner’s conviction became “final” when the Court of
Appeals issued its mandate, the last act on petitioner's direct
appeal. Although it is established that the finality of an
“otherwise final” judgment may be suspended by certain post-
judgment filings, and that a statute of limitations often is
arrested or tolled upon such a post-judgment filing or appeal,
in this case the petitioner did nothing to arrest the finality of the
judgment of the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the view that,
without any further definition in the statute, the judgment of a
court does not “become final” until the time expires for review
of that judgment undermines the integrity of a judgment of a
court of law.
C. The parties place great reliance on the definition of
“final” this Court has used “for purposes of retroactivity
analysis” in cases such as Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314
(1987), and Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989); see Caspari
v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390 (1994). But this Court has made
clear that the non-statutory definition of “finality” used in these
cases derives from “basic norms of constitutional
adjudication.” Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322. The Court determined
that it was precluded from “fishing one case from the stream of
appellate review, using it as a vehicle for pronouicing new
constitutional standards, and then permitting a stream of similar
cases subsequently to flow by unaffected by that new rule.” /d.
at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted). These
considerations have no applicability here. Moreover, whereas
Congress’s formulation in § 2244 is analogous to that in the
Griffith/ Teague cases, the formulation in § 2255 markedly is
not.
Finally, the remaining arguments of incongruity and
impracticality asserted by the parties with respect to the
statutory interpretation of the Court of Appeals simply are
x}
inapposite. Because the difference in the language of the
statutory text is material and plain, it is not necessary for this
Court to divine and find sufficient a reason for what Congress
has done. See Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson,
122 S. Ct. 708, 717 (2002); Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581,
594 (1989). But there nevertheless are reasons why Congress
would treat claims under § 2254 (to which § 2244 relates) and
§ 2255 differently, given fundamental differences in the nature
of the proceedings under § 2254 and § 2255. Moreover, under
the court’s interpretation of § 2255 here, defendants still have
adequate time to prepare claims under § 2255 (and far more
than the six months permitted for claims under § 2254 in
certain capital cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2263); the issue in this
case is whether a defendant who does not petition for certiorari
will have one year after the Court of Appeals issues its mandate
(and almost 10 months after the time to file a petition for
certiorari expires), or one year and sixty-nine days after the
Court of Appeals issues its mandate. And it is simply false that
the interpretation of the court below will encourage the filing
of additional and unnecessary petitions for certiorari. The risk
of frivolous filings comes from the practice — not at issue here,
and contrary to the established interpretation of analogous
provisions of Rule 33 and the Speedy Trial Act — that the time
bar in § 2255 is automatically extended if a defendant files a
petition for certiorari.
In sum, the Russello principle clearly and appropriately
governs this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
consistent with the normal operation of judgments and should
be affirmed.
ARGUMENT
I. A COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE OF 28
U.S.C. § 2255 AND 28 U.S.C. § 2244 ESTABLISHES
THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE WORDS
“BECOMES FINAL” IN § 2255 TO BE DEPENDENT
ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR
REVIEW.
As this Court repeatedly has declared, “[lJogic and
precedent dictate that [the] starting point in every case
involving construction of a statute is the language itself.”
Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U.S. 322, 330
(1978) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002). This
Court’s obligation is to construe § 2255 as it is written, not as
the parties would have the Court amend it. Here, in order to
determine the meaning of the term “final” in the § 2255
limitation period, the language of § 2255 must be compared to
other provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167,
172-73 (2001); United Sav. Ass'n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood
Forest Assocs., Lid., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (making clear
the importance of considering a statute in the context of the
whole “statutory scheme”). In particular, it is important to
consider the differences between § 2255, which sets forth a
limitation period for collateral review motions of federal
prisoners, and § 2244, which sets forth a limitation period for
analogous habeas corpus petitions of state prisoners pursuant
to § 2254.
Section 2244 contains language that, if transplanted into
§ 2255, would clearly give federal prisoners who fail to file
petitions for certiorari the extra sixty-nine days on which the
-9-
parties here insist.’ However, § 2255 pointedly does not
contain that language, and Congress’s choice to include it in
one provision and exclude it in the other must be presumed to
be purposeful and significant. As the Courts of Appeals for the
Seventh and Fourth Circuits and several district courts have
held, see Gendron, 154 F.3d at 674; United States v. Torres,
211 F.3d 836, 838-41 (4th Cir. 2000); see also, e.g., United
States v. Burch, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1253 (D. Kan. 1998)
(collecting cases), rev ‘d, 202 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2000) — and,
indeed, as the United States previously argued, see Kapral v.
United States, 166 F.3d 565, 569 (3d Cir. 1999) — the necessary
inference is that Congress did not intend that § 2255 have the
same meaning as § 2244. Comparison of § 2255 and § 2263,
which governs the habeas petitions of prisoners serving capital
sentences in certain states and which contains language similar
to § 2244, is similarly instructive.
l. For the most part, § 2244’s one-year limitation
period closely parallels the period set forth in § 2255. Each
provision describes four possible dates and provides that the
limitation period shall run from the latest of those dates. The
provisions’ descriptions of three of those four dates — relating
to governmental impediments to filing, newly recognized
constitutional rights, and newly discovered facts — are virtually
identical, although there are a few appropriate differences in
wording to reflect the fact that § 2244 relates only to state
prisoners. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2255 para. 6(2)-(4) with id.
? Under § 2255, a defendant who does not file a petition for certiorari
either will have one year from the date the Court of Appeals issues its
mandate to bring a § 2255 motion (under the construction of the Fourth and
Seventh Circuits), or one year and sixty-nine days from the date the court
issues its mandate (under the construction of the other Circuits). See Gov’t
Br. at 25 (recognizing that “the difference is slight,” normally involving only
sixty-nine days).
-10-
2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). But, although both sections refer to
enter nahh sent for the fourth date, they do
so in strikingly different ways. Section 2255 states that “{t}he
limitation period shall rua from . . . the date on which the
judgment of conviction becomes final,” id. § 2255 para. 6(1),
whereas § 2244 states that “(t]he limitation period shall run
from . . . the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review,” id. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Because Congress did not otherwise define “final” and
because it used different “final”-related language in § 2244 and
§ 2255, the proper canon of construction in this case is plainly
not one that tries to harmonize the use of a single statutory term
or phrase in a number of different contexts. Rather, the canon
that must be applied is set forth in Russello v. United States,
464 U.S. 16 (1983): “[{W]here Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress
acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or
exclusion.” /d. at 23 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). This canon is deeply entrenched in this Court’s
precedents, and has been applied in a wide variety of statutory
contexts, including AEDPA. See, e.g., Barnhart, 534 U.S. at
452-53; Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998);
Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29 (1997); United States v.
Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997); Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S.
115, 120 (1994); General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496
U.S. 530, 538 (1990); INS v. Cardoza-Fonesca, 480 U.S. 421,
432 (1987).
In this case, Congress chose to include the phrase “the
expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review” in § 2244,
and thus to lengthen the limitation period for state prisoners
who did not seek such review, but chose not to include similar
language in § 2255. Under Russello, “[t)he absence of [the
we - EE EF ee em ee
SS | ema clint eal camanaat ate
-11-
§ 2244) language in § 2255 provides a powerful negative
inference that the start of its one-year period of limitation is not
delayed until the expiration of the period in which a federal
defendant could have petitioned for certiorari, but did not.”
Torres, 211 F.3d at 839-40; see also Gendron, 154 F.3d at 674
(“In § 2244, Congress expressly included the period for seeking
review whether or not a petitioner elected to avail himself of
the opportunity. Because similar language is absent in § 2255,
we conclude that Congress intended to treat the period of
limitations differently under the two sections.”’). See generally,
e.g., General Motors Corp., 496 U.S. at 538 (“Since the
Statutory language does not expressly impose a 4-month
deadline and Congress expressly included other deadlines in the
Statute, it seems likely that Congress acted intentionally in
omitting the 4-month deadline in § 110(a)(3)(A) [of the Clean
Air Act].”).
Any other reading of the two provisions is impossible,
because it renders superfluous much of the language describing
the § 2244 limitation. If “final” as used in AEDPA necessarily
included the expiration of time for seeking further review, then
there would have been no need for Congress to include the
extra language that appears in § 2244(d)(1)(A). See Hohn vy.
United States, 524 U.S. 236, 249 (1998) (“We are reluctant to
adopt a construction making another statutory provision
superfluous.”); see also Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 62
(1998); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39
(1955). Petitioner’s contention that this language is included
because different states themselves have different definitions of
finality, see Pet. Br. at 22, cannot be accurate: only federal
courts entertain § 2254 petitions, and the question that must be
answered by both § 2244 and § 2255 is what “final” means as
a matter of federal law. See, e.g., Dickerson v. New Banner
Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1983) (explaining that
“[w]hether one has been ‘convicted’ within the language of the
-12-
gun control statutes is necessarily . . . a question of federal, not
state, law, despite the fact that the predicate offense and its
punishment are defined by the law of the State”); United States
v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 411 (1957). Federal courts are just as
able to divine a uniform federal meaning of “final” for
applicatiem to state prisoners (and then to apply it to the
different «ir ds of proceedings that result from the varying laws
of different states) as they are able to divine the meaning of
“final” in § 2255.
In short, because of the difference in wording between
§ 2255 and the otherwise almost identical § 2244, the two
statutery sections must mean different things. While that
conclusion does not yet determine affirmatively what “final”
means in § 2255, it does definitively rule out the specific
meaning advocated by the parties. But unless the parties are
correct, petitioner’s motion, filed on the last possible day under
the most generous possible interpretation of the statute, was
plainly untimely. Moreover, as shown below in Part Il, the
most natural reading of “final” in § 2255 is that it does not refer
to the time for seeking further review when that review is not
actually sought.
2. Faced with these powerful textual arguments, the
parties struggle to identify 4 different (and more favorable)
canon of construction, and to distinguish Russelio away. First,
the parties claim that § 2244 essentially defines the term “final”
as used in § 2255. Second, the parties assert that .cussello does
not apply to AEDPA provisions, and more specifically that it
cannot be used ia comparing § 2244 and § 2255 because at
least part of § 2244 must necessarily be read into § 2255's
limitation period. Third, the parties argue that the language of
§ 2263 undermines the comparison between § 2244 and § 2255.
These arguments must be rejected.
-13-
a. Section 2244 does not provide the meaning of “final”
in § 2255. In reading the “final[ity]” provisions of § 2255 and
§ 2244 side by side, the parties inexplicably invoke the
principle that “identical words used in different parts of the
same act are intended to have the same meaning.” Sorenson v.
Secretary of the Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986)
(discussing two uses of word “overpayment” in one statutory
provision); see Pet. Br. at 20; Gov’t Br. at 19. But this
principle of statutory interpretation simply has no relevance
here. As the Fourth and Seventh Circuits correctly recognized,
Congress quite clearly did not use “identical words” in § 2244
and § 2255, even though both sections have the same purpose
of imposing a limitation period on a formerly limit-less
collateral review process. Section 2255 refers to the moment
when a federal prisoner’s conviction “becomes final,” and
elaborates no further; § 2244, in contrast, sets forth two sp¢cific
circumstances in which a state prisoner’s conviction will be
considered to have become final for habeas purposes.
Nor does § 2244, as the parties intimate, provide 2
complete definition of “final” for use in all of the ,.EDPA
provisions that follow it. Section 2244 could have ¢asily been
written in a definitional manner — it could have sajd, fo-
instance, that the one-year limitation period runs from jhe date
when “the judgment became final, which is definec in this
chapter as the date at the ccnclusion o* direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review.” put “{-Jhe
short answer is that Congress did not write the scatute that
way.” United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773 (1979).
Rather, Congress wrote § 2244 to suggest nothing moy¢ than
that two particular events are relevant for the specific purpose
of fixing the limitation period for the federal habeas
applications of state prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(i)(A)
(stating that the triggering date is the latest of the date “on
which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
-14-
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”
(emphasis added)); see also City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451
U.S. 304, 317 (1981).
b. Russello is fully applicable here. Both petitioner and
the United States attempt to distinguish away or otherwise
attack the Russello principle, but none of their various efforts
in this regard is successful. As an initial matter, it must be
noted that the Russello canon is distinct from the related
principle of expressio unius est exciusio alterius, at which the
government directs its fire. See Gov’t Br. at 26, 28-29. The
expressio unius principle is that “expressing one item of [an]
associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned,”
United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1049 (2002), and
“depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things
that should be understood to go hand in hand, which are
abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that
the term left out must have been meant to be excluded.”
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabai, 122 S. Ct. 2045, 2050
(2002); see, e.g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993),
Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 611 (1927). But expressio
unius applies where it is unclear whether the drafter even
considered the existence or the relevance of the excluded term,
which the drafter by definition did not use; the Russello
principle applies where the drafter did choose to use in one
place, and therefore necessarily must have known about and
thought about, the word or item excluded in another place. The
Russello principle therefore obviously creates a stronger
presumption, and thus a stronger canon of interpretation, than
expressio unius.
In this case, there is no reason to believe that the Russello
principle is inapposite based on the so-called “hypothesis of
careful draftsmanship.” Pet. Br. at 22-23 (quoting United
States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274, 1277 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing
-15-
Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 579 (3d Cir. 1999)
(Alito, J., concurring)). The Russello decision itself and the
many other decisions of this Court that have relied on the same
basic canon of statutory construction do not depend on the
existence of some proof that Congress labored particularly
carefully over the statutory provisions at issue; rather, they
embody a basic and generally applicable presumption that
Congress does act carefully and thoughtfully when it drafts
statutes. The Russello Court compared a section of RICO that
spoke broadly of “any interest . . . acquired” with the
immediately following section, which more narrowly covered
“any interest in . . . any enterprise which [the defendant] has
established[,] operated, controlled, conducted, or participated
in the conduct of.” Russello, 464 U.S. at 23 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The Court “refrain[ed] from
concluding . . . that the differing language in the two
subsections has the same meaning in each,” stating that it
“would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple
mistake in draftsmanship.” /d.; see also, e.g., Barnhart, 534
US. at 454.
Similarly, the difference between § 2255 and § 2244,
which are closely related provisions, is far too striking to
ascribe to a mere drafting mistake. Indeed, the Russello
principle applies with particular force where, as here, the two
provisions to be compared were enacted at the same time as
part of the same statute, and where the relevant language in the
provision from which the negative implication is drawn was
added after the provision being interpreted had already come
into existence.’ As this Court has explained, “negative
° As petitioner explains, when the first proposed trigger for the § 2244
statute of limitations was changed in S. 623 from “the date on which State
remedies are exhausted” to “the date on which the judgment became final
by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking
-16-
implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest when
the portions of a statute treated differently had already been
joined together and were being considered simultaneously
when the language raising the implication was inserted.” Lindh
v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 330 (1997); see also Field v. Mans,
516 U.S. 59, 75 (1995) (“The more apparently deliberate the
contrast, the stronger the inference, as applied, for example, to
contrasting statutory sections originally enacted simultaneously
in relevant respects . . . .”); United States v. Granderson, 511
U.S. 39, 63 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“The
such review,” the proposed language in § 2255 was not similarly altered.
Pet. Br. at 24-26 (citing S. 623, 104th Cong. § 2 (1995)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Otherwise, as the government expressly suggests, the legislative history
of AEDPA is not especially helpful in interpreting § 2255's limitations
period, see Gov’t Br. at 22 n.6; this is no doubt why the parties place very
little emphasis on it. The government has identified two House Reports,
separated by more than a decade, that were part of the very long legislative
process leading up the enactment of AEDPA and that used the § 2244
language to describe the § 2255 time bar, see id., but these Reports are not
dispositive of Congress’s intent. Neither one, of course, is the report for S.
735, the bill that was actually enacted as AEDPA in 1996 following the
Oklahoma City bombing. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-23, at 16 (1995)
(discussing H.R. 729); S. Rep. No. 98-226, at 30 (1983) (discussing S.
1763); see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-518 (1996), reprinted in 1996
U.S.C.C.A.N. 944 (report to accompany S. 735). Further, Congress's
passing use in a Committee Report of a phrase that was eventually included
in the statute in a provision other than § 2255 a ee
= obviously thought that phrase in question was
a suaaten anal the text of the law where it was relevant
and applicable, and presumably made a conscious choice not to use the
phrase — which is nowhere mentioned in the conference report discussing the
enacted bill — in § 2255 itself. See generally, e.g., Bailey v. United States,
516 U.S. 137, 150 (1995) (explaining that “Congress knew how to draft a
statute to reach a firearm that was ‘intended to be used,”” but did not draft
the provision at issue that way).
o)7-
presumption loses some of its force when the sections in
question are dissimilar and scattered at distant points of a
lengthy and complex enactment. But in this case, given the
parallel structure of [the provisions] and the fact that Congress
enacted both provisions in the same section of the same Act,
the presumption is strong.”); Gozlon-Peretz v. United States,
498 U.S. 395, 404 (1991); Pet. Br. at 20 (explaining that § 2244
and § 2255 should be read together because they deal with the
same issue and were enacted contemporaneously); Gov’t Br. at
19-20.
It is true that in Lindh this Court identified one specific
portion of AEDPA as inartfully drafted. See Lindh, 521 U.S.
at 336. But Lindh itself, while acknowledging this statutory
“loose end,” was nevertheless decided on the basis of a detailed
textual examination of AEDPA’s provisions and on a negative
implication drawn by comparing one chapter of AEDPA to
another: “We read this provision of § 107(c), expressly
applying chapter 154 to all cases pending at enactment, as
indicating implicitly that the amendments to chapter 153 were
assumed and meant to apply to the general run of habeas cases
only when those cases had been filed after the date of the Act.”
Id. at 327.
In addition, this Court has expressly applied the Russello
canon of interpretation to AEDPA provisions on two separate
occasions. In Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998), this
Court found that “[t]he clear limit on this Court’s jurisdiction
to review denials of motions to file second or successive
petitions by writ of certiorari contrasts with the absence of an
analogous limitation to certiorari review of denials of
applications for certificates of appealability,” and relied on this
comparison in concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider
denials of certificate applications. /d. at 250-51 (quoting Bates
and Russello). More recently, in Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.
167 (2001), this Court interpreted the words “State post-
-18-
conviction or other collateral review” in § 2244(d)(2) to
exclude a federal habeas motion, and in doing so compared the
provision to other sections of AEDPA in which “Congress
specifically used both the words ‘State’ and ‘Federal’ to denote
state and federal proceedings.” /d. at 172-73 (quoting Bates
and Russello); see also, e.g., Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d
133, 137 (2d Cir. 2001) (interpreting § 2244(d)(2) by
comparing it to § 2244(d)(1)(A), and noting that at least seven
other Courts of Appeals have done the same), cert. denied, 122
S. Ct. 1606 (2002). Accordingly, the mere status of provisions
as part of the AEDPA enactment does not exclude them from
the operation of the Russello principle.
Nor, as petitioner and the government claim, does
application of the Russello principle preclude reading “final” in
§ 2255 to refer to “the conclusion of direct review” merely
because this phrase appears in § 2244 along with the phrase
“the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” See Pet.
Br. at 26-27; Gov’t Br. at 28; see also United States v. Garcia,
210 F.3d 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000); Burch, 202 F.3d at 1278.
Under the Russello canon, Congress’s use of different language
in the two sections strongly implies that the sections mean
different things — not that they cannot overlap in any way.
The parties’ argument simply disregards the linguistic
realities of § 2244. That provision is plainly written to specify
two particular circumstances in which the judgment should be
deemed to have become final for purposes of state habeas
petitions, and to ask which one is the “latest.” It would have
made no sense for Congress to have written the statute to say ~
as the parties would seemingly require as a prerequisite for the
application of Russello — that the limitation period runs from
“the date on which the judgment became final or the expiration
of time for seeking direct review.” Instead, § 2244 sets up 4
comparison of finality triggers, and this requires the two
alternative triggers to be placed side by side and held up for
-19-
examination. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1585
(1993) (stating that “or” is used as a “function word to indicate
.-. an alternative between different or unlike things, statuses,
or actions”).
Thus, § 2244 is most sensibly read to contrast the more
specific phrase “the expiration of the time for seeking [direct]
review” with the more general phrase “the conclusion of direct
review.” The general is listed first, and the more specific is
then contrasted with it. Thus, even if the first-listed general
phrase is identical to what was intended in § 2255, there was
simply no reason in that provision, which contains no such
contrast, for Congress to spell out the meaning that is more
commonly understood by the bare term “final.” Accordingly,
the Gendron and Torres courts appropriately understood “the
expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review” in § 2244 as
an additional element, one that was significantly absent from
the comparable limitation provision for federal prisoners. The
application of Russello by the Fourth and Seventh Circuits was
not selective — rather, it was sensitive to Congress’s diction and
sentence construction in the particular provisions at issue. See
Gendron, 154 F.3d at 674; Torres, 211 F.3d at 839-40. See
generally Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208
(1993) (refusing to read “jurisdiction” in 28 U.S.C. § 1500 as
meaning “jurisdiction to render judgment” when the latter,
— ~~ phrase appeared in several “nearby sections of
The parties attempt to create the illusion that, under the
logic of Russello, anything listed in § 2244 and not listed in
* Of course, if “final” in § 2255 means something even narrower
“ . ’ . . than
the “conclusion of direct review,” the Russello problem that the parties
conjure disappears altogether. See pp. 22-27, infra. This discussion
assumes, without conceding the point, that the premise of the parties’
argument is correct.
-20-
§ 2255 must necessarily be excluded from §-2255, an argument
that depends on conflating Russello with the distinct (though
related) expressio unius canon. But mutual exclusivity is not
in any way a precondition of Russello; rather, the difference
between the language of the provisions reflects a difference in
scope — the two provisions cannot have exactly the same
meaning. For this reason, Russello can readily be applied even
where, for instance, one of the two statutory provisions being
compared defines a category that is a subset of the category
defined in the other provision — indeed, as described above, that
was the case with Russello itself. Accordingly, reading “final”
in § 2255 to refer to the conclusion of direct review fully
adheres to Russello, because it gives content to Congress’s use
of language in that section that differs from the language used
in § 2244. In contrast, the parties’ position would give the two
statutes identical meanings despite their different language.
c. Section 2263 reinforces this analysis. Finally, contrary
to the parties’ contentions, an examination of § 2263, a more
specialized provision that applies to state prisoners serving
capital sentences in certain qualifying states, only tends to
reinforce what the comparison of § 2244 and § 2255
demonstrates. Section 2263, echoing § 2244, provides that its
180-day limitation period begins running “after final State court
affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review or
the expiration of time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2263(a). Although § 2263 is less similar in general wording
and structure to § 2255 than is § 2244, it is nonetheless
“significant that Congress did not choose, as it did in § 2263,
to use language in § 2255 that affirmatively expands the period
of time before the start of the limitation period” for prisoners
who choose not to seek further available review. Torres, 211
F.3d at 840.
It is true, as petitioner points out, that § 2263 also includes
a tolling provision, stating that “[t)he time requirements .. .
-21-
shall be tolled . . . from the date that a petition for certiorari is
filed in the Supreme Court until the date of final disposition of
the petition.” 28 U.S.C. § 2263(b)(1). That tolling provision
is obviously included because the § 2263 limitation period is
triggered by the date of affirmance, rather than the date the
judgment becomes final. Although there is a well-developed
body of law suspending “finality” when additional review is
sought, of which Congress is presumed to be aware, see infra
Part II, Congress can obviously avoid the application of that
law by selecting a specific date on which a judgment is deemed
to become final, and Congress’s express selection of the date of
affirmance in § 2263 has that effect. But the absence of such
a tolling provision from § 2255 is devoid of significance in this
case. It does not tell this Court anything about how Congress
wished § 2255 movants who did not file a petition for certiorari
to be treated. See Torres, 211 F.3d at 840. Indeed, if anything,
the absence of any tolling provision in § 2255 can be read to
indicate that Congress did not wish for equitable tolling to be
applied in that context, and thus intended for federal prisoners
— who, after all, have already received some federal court
review of their cases — to file any § 2255 motion promptly
regardless of whether a petition for certiorari actually was
pending. That construction certainly does not help petitioner.
Accordingly, reading § 2255 together with § 2244 and
§ 2263 precludes the parties’ arguments that a federal prisoner
who fails to file a petition for certiorari is nevertheless entitled
to an extra sixty-nine days — above and beyond the one year
from final judgment provided by Congress — in which to
prepare and file a § 2255 motion.
-22-
ll. IN. MOST CONTEXTS AND FOR MOST
PURPOSES, A JUDGMENT OF A COURT
“BECOMES FINAL” WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR FURTHER
REVIEW.
1. It is not the case that a judgment of conviction
ordinarily “becomes final” only when the time expires to
petition this Court for a writ of certiorari (or this Court resolves
a petition that has been filed), as the parties essentially urge
here. Rather — and particularly with regard to the
commencement of statutes of limitation and other time bars —
it has been broadly established that a judgment “becomes final”
when the Court of Appeals issues its mandate in connection
with the direct appeal as of right, without regard to the
possibility of further discretionary proceedings, un/ess a stay of
the mandate is obtained.’
a. Rule 33. Until it was recently amended, Rule 33 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided that a motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be
filed “before or within two years after final judgment.” Fed. R.
Crim. P. 33 (version in existence prior to Dec. 1, 1998)
(emphasis added), quoted in United States v. Lussier, 219 F.3d
217, 218 (2d Cir. 2000).° Courts uniformly held that this time
* This Court frequently has noted the difference between appeals as of
right and discretionary review proceedings. See, e.g., Ross v. Moffitt, 417
U.S. 600, 612, 616-18 (1974).
® This Rule is particularly noteworthy because, in the legislative history
of an early formulation of the § 2255 time bar noted by the government, see
Gov’t Br. at 22 n.6, Congress indicated that it sought to enact a statute of
limitations under § 2255 that would be comparable to the time bar that
existed under this version of Rule 33. See S. Rep. No. 98-226, at 9-10
(1983). The Report noted the absence of a time limitation under § 2255 and
explained:
-23-
bar was triggered when the Court of Appeals issued its mandate
of affirmance, regardless of the possibility of further review.
Thus, in United States v. Cook, 705 F.2d 350 (9th Cir.
1983), the court explained that courts had construed “final
judgment” under Rule 33 as “the date on which the appellate
process ‘is terminated.”” Jd. at 351 (citations omitted). The
court continued: “The appellate process is terminated — and
thus the two-year period begins to run — when an appellate
court issues its mandate of affirmance.” Jd. The court in Cook
specifically rejected an argument that the two-year period did
not begin to run until the Supreme Court had denied a petition
[T]he absence of a time limit is at odds with the approach taken
in other contexts by Federal law to the review or re-opening of
judgments. For example, a Federal defendant must normally
decide whether to appeal within 10 days, . . . and a Federal
defendant seeking re-trial on grounds of newly discovered
evidence [under Rule 33] must do so within 2 years of final
curious effect that a Federal prisoner who discovers proof of his
innocence more than two years after final judgment has no
judicial remedy, but must seek executive clemency, while a State
or Federal prisoner who asserts violations of Constitutional rights
.. . 8 afforded a federal judicial remedy without limitation of
time. The time limitation rule of [the bill at hand] would reduce
this discrepancy, bringing the availability of collateral relief into
closer conformity with the approach taken by federal law in
other contexts to maintenance of orderly procedures and
assurance of finality in criminal! adjudication.
Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The parallel between Rule 33 and
§ 2255 also is apt because a motion under § 2255, like a motion under Rule
33, was »~ ved by Congress as a further step in the defendant's criminal
CASE. See, vg, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 182 (1982) (Brennan,
J., dissenting) (quoting S. Rep. No. 80-1526, at 2 (1948)). In 1998, Rule 33
was revised to provide that a motion for a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence may be made only within three years after the verdict
or finding of guilty.
-24-
for certiorari that the defendant had filed. Jd. The court
explained: “Cook’s argument would have merit if he had
obtained a stay of our mandate pending his application to the
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Cook, however, did not
obtain (or even seek to obtain) a stay of our mandate before he
sought review in the Supreme Court. The mandate having been
issued and neither stayed nor recalled, the Supreme Court’s
action on his certiorari petition is thus irrelevant to the issue of
the timeliness of his Rule 33 motion.” /d. (citation omitted).
Other courts similarly held that “the appellate process
terminate[{d]” and the judgment became “final” for purposes of
the two-year limitation period of Rule 33 when the Court of
Appeals issued its mandate of affirmance — and that the filing
of a petition for certiorari was irrelevant unless the defendant
first obtained a stay of the mandate. See, e.g., United States v.
Spector, 888 F.2d 583, 584 (8th Cir. 1989); Lussier, 219 F.3d
at 218-19. In Lussier, the Second Circuit explicitly held that a
motion filed more than two years after the Court of Appeals
had issued its mandate of affirmance, but within two years of
this Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari, “was filed more
than two years after the judgment became final.” 219 F.3d at
218 (emphasis added). Because the defendant had not obtained
a stay of the mandate, the court rejected the defendant's
argument that “the original judgment did not become ‘final’
until the Supreme Court denied certiorari.” Jd. The court
reasoned that “appellate courts remain in control of the date for
issuing mandates and generally delay issuance [pursuaht to Fed.
R. App. P. 41(d)] only when the merits of a criminal appeal are
of sufficient substance to make Supreme Court review at least
a reasonable possibility.” /d. at 218-19 (quoting United States
v. Reyes, 49 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1995)) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also United States v. Biaggi, 823 F. Supp.
1151, 1160 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (stating that “movants provide no
case law to support their contention{] that . . . the denial of
-25-
certiorari amounts to a final judgment”), aff'd, 48 F.3d 1213
(2d Cir. 1994) (unpub. table decision).’ Thus, the established
practice under Rule 33 was that a judgment became “final”
upon the issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals and
the two-year limitation period began to run on that date — not
the date that time expired to file a petition for certiorari.®
” In numerous other cases in which a petition for certiorari was not
filed, courts similarly held that the judgment became “final” and the two-
year limitation period in Rule 33 began to run when the Court of Appeals
issued its mandate of affirmance, and not when the time expired to file a
petition for certiorari. See, e.g., Romero v. United States, 28 F.3d 267, 268
(2d Cir. 1994) (judgment final upon “the date of the issuance of the mandate
of affirmance”); United States v. Dayton, 981 F.2d 1200, 1203 (11th Cir.
1993) (“the return of the mandate”); United States v. Gross, 614 F.2d 365,
366 n.2 (3d Cir. 1980) (“the date when the appellate court issues its
mandate”), United States v. Granza, 427 F.2d 184, 185 n.3 (Sth Cir. 1970)
(“issuance of the mandate of affirmance”); Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d
354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (“mandate of affirmance”); Harrison v. United
States, 191 F.2d 874, 876 (Sth Cir. 1951) (“mandate of affirmance”).
* Significantly, the same reasoning employed under Rule 33 has been
used by the Courts of Appeals to hold that the possibility of further
discretionary review in this Court on a petition for rehearing does not
warrant the conclusion that the judgment of conviction is not “final” within
the meaning of § 2255. The Rules of this Court specifically allow a petition
for rehearing to be filed within twenty-five days after the date of an order
denying a petition for certiorari, so long as the petition is “limited to
intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other
substantial grounds not previously presented.” S. Ct. R. 44(2). However,
unless the decision denying a petition for certiorari is suspended by a Justice
or the Court, the order denying the petition is effective regardless of the
reas Grail oan, a 16(3) (“The order of denial [of a
it not be suspended pending disposition of a
petition for rehearing except by order of the Court of @ Justice”). On the
basis of this Rule, the Courts of Appeals have held unanimously that — even
though 2ule 44.2 defines circumstances in which rehearing (and therefore
further proceedings on “direct” review) could be appropriate — a judgment
of conviction “becomes final” within the meaning of § 2255 when this Court
denies a petition for certiorari. See, e.g., United States v. Segers, 271 F.3d
-26-
b. Speedy Trial Act. A similar rule has been applied
under the Speedy Trial Act. Using the same words as in
§ 2255, Congress provided that the time for trying or retrying
a criminal defendant following an appeal, a mistrial, an order
for a new trial, or a collateral attack “shall commence w:thin
seventy days from the date the action occasioning the tris! [er
retrial] becomes final.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(d)(2) (empsas 4
added) (trial); id. § 3161(e) (retrial). In cases involving ‘ies
or retrials following an appeal, it is broadly established ts the
date the action occasioning the trial or retrial “becomes ‘inal”
is the date the Court of Appeals issues its mandate. See, ¢.g.,
United States v. Kington, 875 F.2d 1091, 1109 (Sth Cir 1989)
(“an appellate disposition occasioning a retrial becomes jal on
the date when the appellate court issues its mandate” (erhasis
added)); United States v. Rivera, $44 F.2d 916, 920 © Cir.
1988) (“an appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is
issued” (emphasis added)); United States v. Felton, 811 F.2d
190, 198 (3d Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“The action of a court of
appeals does not become final until its mandate is issued. . . .
[W]e agree with the district court that the language of the
statute (‘the date the action . .. becomes final’) requires that the
date of issuance [of the mandate] be the point of departure.”);
United Staies v. Robertson, 810 F.2d 254, 259 & n.6 (D.C. Cir.
1987); United Staies v. Scalf, 760 F.2d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir.
1985); United States v. Ross, 654 F.2d 612, 616 (9th Cir.
181, 186 (4th Cir. 2001) (judgment becomes final “absent the issuance of
a suspension order by the Court or a Justice thereof”), cert. denied, 122 S.
Ct. 1331 (2002); United States v. Willis, 202 F.3d 1279, 1280 (10th Cir.
2000) (denial of certiorari is final “absent an actual suspension of an order
denying certiorari by the Court”); Giesberg v. Cockrell, 288 F.3d 268, 271
(5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 71 U.S.L.W. 3283 (U.S. Sept. 27, 2002)
(No. 02-522); Horton v. United States, 244 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 2001);
Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2001); United
States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350, 356 (Sth Cir. 2000).
-27-
1981): see also United States v. Cheek, 3 °.3d 1057, 1065 (7th
Cir. 1993).
In Scalj, the court specifically held that, in order for a
judgment to “become final” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161, it is not necessary for the government’s time to petition
for certiorari to expire. The court rejected the government’s
argument that “the time period ¢ ves not begin to run or is tolled
while [the Solicitor General’s} office makes a decision on
whether or not to seek certiorari on the previous appeal,”
explaining that “[w]e have already held that the period begins
to run when the mandate of the appellate court is issued. An »
application te seek curticrari or a decision to make such
application has no effew: a the finality of an appellate decision
unless the mandate the court is stayed or withdrawn in
connection with such event.” Scalf, 760 F.2d at 1059
(emphasis added).
¢. Other. The same rule has been applied in other
contexts involving statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Glick v.
Balientine Produce, Inc., 397 F.2d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1968)
(holding that limitation period provided by Missouri “savings”
statute began to sun when dismissal of earlier action was
affirmed on appeal and Court of Appeals issued its mandate,
because “[ w]e find no support for the contention that the filing
of a petition for a writ of certiorari prevents the judgment of
this court from hecoming final until the Supreme Court acts
upon the petition, where no stay of mandate has been filed”).
Thus, it is commonly understood, particularly with regard
to the commencement of limitation periods. that a judgment
* A few courts modified this rule slightly, heidung that the speedy trial
clock resumed when the district court received the mandate. See, e.g.,
United States v. Long, 900 F.2d 1270, 1276-77 (8th Cir. 1990); United
States v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 1987).
-28-
“becomes final” when it is affirmed on the direct appeal as
of right, regardless of the possibility of further discretionary
proceedings, unless a stay of the mandate of affirmance is
obtained. This Court may presume that Congress was familiar
with this settled law, particularly given Congress’s reference to
Rule 33 in the early legislative history discussed above. See
supra note 6; Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 9 (1999)
(“it is reasonable to presume that Congress was familiar with
the cases and the scholarly writing” interpreting particular
terms); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-98
(1979) (presuming congressional knowledge of interpretation
of similarly worded earlier statute); United States v. Merriam,
263 U.S. 179, 187 (1923) (Congress presumed to intend
judicially settled meaning of terms). Certainly, within the
contexts presented by these decisions, the finality of a judgment
is not dependent upon the expiration of the time to file a
petition for certiorari in this Court.
2. The rule that a judgment becomes final upon the
issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals, without regard
to the expiration of the time to file a petition for certiorari, also
is consistent with the ordinary operation of judgments.
Judgments of all kinds of all courts, trial and appellate, become
“final” without regard to the expiration of the time for review."
Thus, with respect to the judgment of a trial court,
“[t}raditionally, a ‘final judgment’ is one that is final and
'° At bottom, the meaning of the words “becomes final” cannot be
separated from the meaning of “final.” The word “become” or “becomes”
generally means simply “to come to exist” or “to come to be” something —
in this case, final. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 195 (1993).
Cf. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326 (1999) (holding that the
defendant's privilege against self-incrimination following the entry of a
guilty plea expires when “the sentence has been fixed and the judgment of
conviction has become final” (emphasis added)).
-29-
appealable.” Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 95 (1991).
In Melkonyan, the Court noted that Congress had added an
“unusual” definition of final judgment in the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G), as one that is “final
and not appealable.” See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 95.
Significantly, it is that same “unusual” definition — that a
“final” judgment is one that is not appealable (and for which a
petition for certiorari may no longer be filed) — that the parties
seek to adopt as the ordinary meaning of the words “becomes
final” in § 2255.
The same rule applies with respect to the “finality” of the
judgment of an appellate court. A judgment of the Court of
Appeals is final when it fully resolves the appeal and leaves
nothing left to be decided. See, e.g., Scofield v. NLRB, 394
U.S. 423, 427 (1969) (explaining that a judgment of a Court of
Appeals “‘for our purposes is final when the issues are
adjudged’ and settled with finality” (quoting Market St. Ry. Co.
v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal., 324 U.S. 548, 551 (1945))); FTC
v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 212-
13 (1952) (stating that, despite the fact that only a second
judgment of the Court of Appeals was marked “final,” an
earlier judgment “was for all purposes final,” because “[i}t put
to rest the questions which the parties had litigated in the Court
of Appeals” and “was neither ‘tentative, informal nor
incomplete’” (citation omitted))."'
'' In the Market Street Railway case, the Court explained, with regard
to a state rule that provided that a judgment of the California Supreme Court
generally became final 30 days after filing: “The judgment for our purposes
is final when the issues are adjudged. Such finality is not deferred by the
existence of a latent power in the rendering court to reopen or revise its
judgment. The waiting period prescribed by the statute here seems to
reserve a power of that character. The decision during this period does not
lack the attributes of an adjudication, it is not awaiting lapse of time to
become a judgment, it merely is subject to modification.” Market St. Ry.
-30-
Absent a stay, judgments of both trial and appellate courts
generally are “final” and enforceable without regard to the
expiration of the time for review. Thus, in a criminal case, the
defendant may be incarcerated in accordance with the sentence
despite the opportunity for appeal, unless a stay is granted in
accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 38(b) and
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b). In a civil case, the
brief “automatic stay” of execution of judgment does not
extend to the time for appeal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), and the
judgment may be executed unless a supersedeas bond is
obtained and approved by the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).
Similarly, upon entry of the judgment of a Court of
Appeals (which generally occurs upon issuance of the court’s
opinion, see Fed. R. App. P. 36), the ninety-day period in which
to petition for certiorari begins to run. See S. Ct. R. 13(3).
However, before that time expires, the “mandate” of the Court
of Appeals generally will issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b)."
And “the mandate is effective when issued,” Fed. R. App. P.
41(c) — regardless of the fact that a petition for certiorari still
may be filed. In order to avoid the dictates of the mandate
pending the resolution of a petition for certiorari, a party must
affirmatively seek a stay of the mandate, as is expressly
authorized by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2).
Co., 324 U.S. at 551 (emphasis added).
? Rule 41(b) provides: “The court’s mandate must issue 7 days after
the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an
order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or
motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or
extend the time.” Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). A petition for panel rehearing or
rehearing en banc generally must be filed within fourteen days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40{a)(1). Thus, in the absence of a
petition for rehearing, the mandate typically issues twenty-one days after
judgment, well within the time that a petition for certiorari may be filed.
$i.
Thus, both at trial and on appeal, a judgment of a court
generally becomes “final” and operative “when the issues are
adjudged.” Market St. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal.,
324 U.S. 548, 551 (1945). Such a pronouncement of a court,
though subject to the possibility of further review and
modification, “is not awaiting lapse of time to become a
judgment” or to become final. Jd. Thus, under the most
common understanding of the words, the judgment of the Court
of Appeals affirming petitioner’s conviction was not dependent
upon the expiration of the time to file a petition for certiorari in
order to “become final.”
3. It also is firmly established that the finality of a
judgment that has otherwise “become final” may be suspended
by certain post-judgment filings. Significantly, however, it is
only the actual filing of such an application that suspends the
finality of the judgment and arrests the application of time bars
that are triggered by the entry of that judgment. These rules
therefore again illustrate the general rule that a judgment
“becomes final” upon the date of entry by the court, not the
date when time expires for further review.
For example, it long has been established in both civil and
criminal cases that a timely motion for a new trial or for
reconsideration acts to suspend the finality of a judgment, and
the time to appeal does not begin to run until the motion for a
new trial or for reconsideration is decided. See, e.g., Brockett
v. Brockett, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 238, 241 (1844) (Story, C.J.);
United States v. Ellicott, 223 U.S. 524, 539 (1912); Morse v.
United States, 270 U.S. 151, 153-54 (1926) (“There is no doubt
under the decisions and practice in this Court that where a
motion for a new trial in a court of law, or a petition for a
rehearing in a court of equity, is duly and seasonably filed, it
suspends the running of the time for taking a writ of error or an
appeal, and that the time within which the proceeding to review
must be initiated begins from the date of the denial of either the
-32-
motion or petition.”); United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78
(1964); United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6 (1991) (a motion
for rehearing in a criminal case, like a motion for rehearing in
a civil case, “renders an otherwise final decision of a district
court not final until it decides the petition for rehearing”).'
The rule has been applied broadly to judgments of
appellate courts as well as trial courts. Thus, the filing of a
timely petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals “operates
to suspend the finality of the . . . court’s judgment,”
Department of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264, 266
(1942), and has the effect of “tolling the start of the period in
which a petition for certiorari must be sought,” Missouri v.
Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 45 (1990). Similarly, a timely petition to
reopen or reconsider an order of an agency “stay(s] the running
of the . . . limitation period” for judicial review. JCC v.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng 'rs, 482 U.S. 270, 284 (1987).
Several features of the rules established in these cases are
significant. First, the Court often has determined that a post-
judgment filing operates to arrest the running of a time bar for
further review despite the lack of any statutory authority for
such a rule, and despite the fact that the time bar at issue is
otherwise jurisdictional and cannot be extended. Thus, in
Healy, this Court noted that “[a]ppellees place great reliance on
the absence of any statute or rule governing the effect of
rehearing petitions of the Government,” but the Court accepted
and applied the rules previously established in other civil and
criminal cases, which it noted also “lack such a foundation.”
' These rules do not involve “tolling” in the classic sense, in that the
time bars at issue have been held to run again, in full, once the petition for
reconsideration is resolved. See /barra, 502 U.S. at 4 (explaining that issue
is better described in terms of when time bar begins to run, rather than in
terms of tolling, because, where doctrine applies, time bar runs in full from
date of subsequent decision).
-33-
Healy, 376 U.S. at 79. Indeed, in Locomotive Engineers, the
Court ruled that a petition to reopen or reconsider an agency
decision stayed the running of the limitation period for judicial
review despite the existence of statutory language that,
“notwithstanding” the authority of the agency to reopen and
reconsider its orders, “an action of the Commission .. . is final
on the date on which it is served.” Locomotive Eng'rs, 482
U.S. at 284; see also Jenkins, 495 U.S. at 45 n.13 (noting that
practice of “tolling” time to petition for certiorari upon
application for rehearing “is now reflected in this Court’s Rule
13.4” (emphasis added)); compare Department of Banking, 317
U.S. at 266."
Second, it is only the actual and timely filing of an
appropriate motion for reconsideration or other review that
suspends the finality of the judgment and the application of the
time bar at issue. If no such petition is timely filed, the time
limitation begins to run when the judgment originally was
entered — not when the time to file the petition expires. See,
e.g., Morse, 270 U.S. at 154 (“The suspension of the running of
the period limited for the allowance of an appeal, after a
judgment has been entered, depends upon the due and seasonal
filing of the motion for a new trial or the petition for
rehearing.” (emphasis added)); Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S.
262, 266 (1940); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264-65 (1978).
'* It also is noteworthy that, in several instances, the filing that operated
to arrest the running of a jurisdictional time bar occurred a considerable time
after the judgment was entered. See, e.g., Ellicott, 223 U.S. at 538-39
(government motion for a new trial filed 84 days after judgment operated to
suspend finality of judgment); Healy, 376 U.S. at 78 (in the absence of a
would be considered timely “when filed within the original period for
review” on appeal).
-34-
Although it is widely established that a timely petition for
reconsideration or rehearing filed in the court that rendered the
judgment operates to suspend the finality of the judgment and
to arrest the application of time bars that are triggered by the
entry of that judgment, the effect of a filing for further review
in another court is less uniform. With regard to statutes of
limitations, however, it often has been held that the actual filing
of an appeal as of right suspends the running of a statute of
limitations triggered by the entry of the judgment from which
the appeal is taken. See, e.g., Morales v. City of Los Angeles,
214 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding, under California
law, that statutes of limitation are tolled during an appeal, but
begin to run again when the appellate court issues a final
judgment, and concluding that this result is “not inconsistent
with federal law”). In these cases, however, the finality of the
judgment — and the running of the statute — is not dependent on
the expiration of the time for further review; rather, the statute
is tolled only if an appeal actually is filed.
As described above, however, a judgment generally is
deemed to “become final” for purposes of the commencement
of a statute of limitations despite the filing of a petition for
certiorari or other discretionary review, unless a stay is
obtained. See pp. 22-27, supra. Authority is slight in which a
judgment is not deemed to “become final” for purposes of the
commencement of a statute of limitations until a filed petition
for certiorari is resolved.'* But, in any event, the general rule
'S The Judicial Conference of the United States, construing the
provisions of the Speedy Trial Act discussed above, see pp. 26-27, supra,
confirmed that the statute is not “reasonably interpreted as justifying delay
for the entire period within which an appeal from a district court order could
be taken or a petition for Supreme Court review filed.” Committee on the
Administration of the Criminal Law, Judicial Conference of the United
States, Guidelines to the Administration of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as
amended 17-20 (rev. Dec. 1979). The Conference continued, however, that
-35-
is this: while certain filings may suspend the finality of a
judgment, the judgment otherwise is final — and applicable time
bars begin to run — unless the filing actually is made. The
finality of the judgment is not dependent on the expiration of
the time to make such a filing.
4. Thus, the Court of Appeals properly applied the
“ordinary” meaning of the words used by Congress in § 2255.
The language of § 2255 simply declares that the one-year
limitation period runs from the date the judgment of conviction
“becomes final.” The court’s conclusion that petitioner’s
§ 2255 motion was untimely, because it was filed more than
one year after the court issued its mandate affirming
petitioner’s conviction — the last act on direct review — is
wholly consistent with the ordinary and well-established rules
regarding the finality and effectiveness of judgments. The
finality of the judgment of the Court of Appeals was not
dependent upon the expiration of the time for further review.
Petitioner did nothing to suspend the finality of that judgment
or to arrest the running of the statute of limitations. Therefore,
under the principles set forth above, including the established
law governing comparable motions under the former version of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 (as well as practice
under the Speedy Trial Act), petitioner had one full year from
the issuance of the mandate to bring a motion under § 2255.'°
“if an appeal or petition for certiorari is filed, the action occasioning the
retrial should not be considered final until the appeal or petition has been
disposed of.” /d. (emphasis added).
'* Although the question is not presented here, there is authority upon
which the Court could conclude that the statute of limitations would have
been arrested if petitioner actually had filed a petition for certiorari. This
Court and others often have determined that a time bar or statute of
limitations may be arrested or tolled, even without explicit statutory
authority, upon an actual filing for review of a judgment to which the statute
of limitations is linked. See pp. 31-35, supra. But see pp. 22-27, supra. It
-36-
At bottom, the parties’ position rests on the view that,
without any further definition in the statute, the judgment of a
court does not “become final” until the time expires for review
of that judgment. Such a construction undermines the integrity
of a judgment of a court. It is one thing to say that the actual
filing of a petition for review operates to suspend the finality of
a judgment and to arrest the running of a time bar or other
statute of limitations tied to the existence of that judgment.
Such rules of suspension promote efficiency and economy for
all concerned. But finality has rarely been dependent on an
action that could have been taken, but was not. Relying heavily
on the “negative inference” presented by the omission of words
in § 2255 that appear in § 2244, the court here properly held
that petitioner’s judgment of conviction had “become final,” as
provided by § 2255, when the Court of Appeals issued its
mandate and the petitioner took no further action to arrest or
suspend the finality of that judgment.
Ill. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS OF INCONGRUITY
AND IMPRACTICALITY DO NOT UNDERMINE
THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
The parties make several policy arguments why this Court
should ignore the stark differences between § 2255 and § 2244,
interpret the provisions to mean exactly the same thing, and
disregard settled rules regarding the finality of judgments.
None of those reasons, however, withstands scrutiny.
is noteworthy that the Courts of Appeals broadly have held that the one-year
period in both § 2255 and § 2244 is a statute of limitations, subject to the
doctrine of equitable tolling, rather than a jurisdictional requirement. See,
e.g., Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1004 & n.1 (6th Cir.)
(collecting cases), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 649 (2001).
-37-
A. This Court’s Definition Of “Final” For
“Purposes Of Retroactivity Analysis”
Is Atypical And Based On Considerations That
Are Fundamentally Different From Those At
Issue Here.
In a series of cases, this Court has held that “[a] state
conviction and sentence become final for purposes of
retroactivity analysis when the availability of direct appeal to
the state courts has been exhausted and the time for filing a
petition for a writ of certiorari has elapsed or a timely filed
petition has been finally decided.” Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S.
383, 390 (1994); see also, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S.
618, 622 n.5 (1965); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321
n.6 (1987); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). The parties
contend that this is the most logical meaning of the word
“final” for purposes of the statute of limitations in § 2255 and
that Congress must have intended this meaning.
At the outset, although this indisputably is a meaning of
“final” that this Court has used in these cases, as noted above
the Court elsewhere has described this definition of “final” as
“unusual.” See p. 29, supra; Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 95. More
fundamentally, however, it is clear that this definition of “final”
for purposes of retroactivity analysis — which is not based on
the language of any statute - is rooted in concems
fundamentally different from those that typically arise with
regard to the determination of when a judgment “become:
final” for purposes of the commencement of a statute of
This Court’s resolution of how to apply new constitutional
rules has changed over time and has evoked strongly held
views. See, e.g., Griffith, 479 U.S. at 320-22 (Court has
“shifted course”); id. at 329-34 (White, J., dissenting);
American Trucking Ass'ns v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 209-18
-38-
(1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Harper v. Virginia Dep't of
Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 102-10 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).
In Griffith, the Court broadly established that “a new rule for
the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied
retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct
review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the
new rule constitutes a ‘clear break’ with the past.” Griffith, 479
U.S. at 328. The Court drew the line where it did, however,
because of “basic norms of constitutional adjudication.” /d. at
322. Repeating the words of Justice Harlan, the Griffith Court
explained that “[i]f we do not resolve all cases before us on
direct review in light of our best understanding of governing
constitutional principles, it is difficult to see why we should so
adjudicate any case at all.... In truth, the Court’s assertion of
power to disregard current law in adjudicating cases before us
that have not already run the full course of appellate review, is
quite simply an assertion that our constitutional function is not
one of adjudication but in effect of legislation.” Jd. at 323
(quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 679 (1971)
(Harlan, J., concurring)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The line of demarcation employed in Griffith was thus
dictated by “the nature of judicial review,” which “precludes us
from ‘[simply] fishing one case from the stream of appellate
review, using it as a vehicle for pronouncing new constitutional
standards, and then permitting a stream of similar cases
subsequently to flow by unaffected by that new rule.’” /d.
(quoting Mackey, 401 U.S. at 679 (Harlan, J., concurring)).
The Court in Griffith also emphasized that “selective
application of new rules violates the principle of treating
similarly situated defendants the same.” /d.
Two years later, in Teague, the Court adopted and applied
the same line of demarcation established in Griffith to cases
arising on collateral review. Thus, Teague holds that “[u)}nless
they fall within an exception to the general rule, new
-39-
constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable
to those cases which have become final before the new rules are
announced.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 (plurality op.); see also
Caspari, 510 U.S. at 389 (“The nonretroactivity principle
prevents a federal court from granting habeas corpus relief to
a state prisoner based on a new rule announced after his
conviction and sentence become final.”).
The decision in Teague rests heavily on the inherent (and
limited) function of habeas corpus: “[T]he Court never has
defined the scope of the writ simply by reference to a perceived
need to assure that an individual accused of crime is afforded
a trial free of constitutional error... . Rather, we have
recognized that interests of comity and finality must also be
considered in determining the proper scope of habeas review.”
Teague, 489 U.S. at 308 (plurality op.) (citing Kuhlmann v.
Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 447 (1986) (plurality op.)) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Bousley v. United States,
523 U.S. 614, 620 (1998) (“The Teague doctrine is founded on
the notion that one of the principal functions of habeas corpus
[is] to assure that no man has been incarcerated under a
procedure which creates an impermissibly large risk that the
innocent will be convicted. Consequently, unless a new rule of
criminal procedure is of such a nature that without [it] the
likelihood of an inaccurate conviction is seriously diminished,
there is no reason to apply the rule retroactively on habeas
review.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In sum, “for purposes of retroactivity analysis,” Caspari,
510 U.S. at 390, the Court has drawn a sharp line between
“direct” and “collateral” review, for reasons bound up with the
very nature of constitutional adjudication and with the limited
scope of the writ of habeas corpus. In large measure, these
concepts, rather than any generalized notions of when a
judgment of a court “becomes final,” drove what the Court
characterized as a “final” judgment for this limited purpose.
-40-
Thus, without more, it simply cannot be said that Congress
must have intended the words “becomes final” in § 2255 to
mean the Griffith/Teague formulation.
Moreover, Congress’s formulation in § 2244 is analogous
to the formulatior. in the Griffith/Teague line of cases, but the
formulation in § 2255 markedly is not.'’ Thus, the very
difference in language between § 2244 and § 2255 indicates
that Congress did not intend to adopt the Griffith/Teague
definition under § 2255. And, as explained below, there are
valid reasons why Congress may have chosen to adopt the
“unusual” Griffith/Teague concept of finality in § 2244, but not
in § 2255.""
"" Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)1)(A)4judgment “became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review”) with Griffith, 479 U.S. at 321 n.6 (“By ‘final,’ we mean a case in
which a judgraent of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal
exhausted, aad the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for
iorari firally denied”). But see 28 U.S.C. § 2255 para. 6(1) (“becomes
final”).
'* By the same token, it is no help to contend that this Court should
“presume” that Congress “expected” § 2255 to be read in conformity with
“this Court’s precedents” — for which the parties selectively have chosen the
Griffith! Teague line of cases. See Pet. Br. at 14-16; Gov't Br. at 17 (quoting
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 495 (1997)). Because the
Griffith/Teague line provides only one of several definitions of “finality”
that this Court has established, to “presurne” that Congress intended to apply
this formulation of “fina!” is simply to assume, without analysis, the answer
to the very question in this case. .
,
-41-
B. The Differences In Collateral Review Of State
And Federal Convictions, And Indeed The
Griffith/Teague Cases, Support The Different
Meanings Of § 2255 And § 2244.
_ The government asserts that “[t]here is no plausible reason
why Congress would have chosen a different definition of
‘finality’ jo apply to federal prisoners under Section 2255 than
to state prisoners under Section 2244.” Gov’t Br. at 29; see
also Pet. Br. at 20-21. At the outset, it is not necessary for this
Court to divine and find sufficient a reason for what Congress
has done; the critical point is that the language of § 2255 is
plainly and materially different from the language of § 2244,
and — particularly given that difference — there is no reason to
impose upon) the language of § 2255 an atypical requirement
that a judgment “becomes final” only upon the expiration of the
time for review. See, e.g., Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co.
v. Knudson, 122 S. Ct. 708, 717 (2002) (“It is . . . not our job to
find reasons for what Congress has plainly done; and it is our
job to avoid rendering what Congress has plainly donc .. .
devoid of reason and effect.”); Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S.
581, 594 (1989) (“we decline to misread the statute in order to
reach a sympathetic result when such a reading requires us to
do violence to the plain language of the statute’”’).
Nevertheless, there are reasons why Congress would treat
claims under § 2255 and § 2254 (to which § 2244 relates)
differently, a point made clear in part by the very cases on
which the parties heavily rely. Although § 2255 and § 2254
both involve collateral review of criminal convictions and are
certainly appropriately compared to each other, the nature of
the two kinds of proceedings is still very different. Under
§ 2254, a state prisoner commences a civil action in federal
court; a § 2255 motion is simply a further step in a federal
prisoner’s criminal case. See, e.g., United States v. Frady, 456
-42-
U.S. 152, 182 (1982) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (quoting S. Rep.
No. 80-1526, at 2 (1948)). As a result, courts acting on § 2254
petitions can address only wrongful custody, but courts
considering § 2255 motions can provide a broader range of
relief, such as correcting sentences and granting new trials. See
Rule 1 Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts advisory committee’s note. More
importantly, federal habeas review of state convictions pursuant
to § 2254 involves the reconsideration of federal claims that
first must have been raised and fully exhausted in state court,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), whereas a federa! prisoner
generally may only raise claims in a § 2255 motion that were
not already considered on direct appeal, and must justify his
failure to raise these claims earlier. See generally Withrow v.
Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 721 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part); Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S.
217, 227 (1969). Given these differences, there is no reason
why in establishing limitation periods Congress would have
insisted on treating federal prisoners who do not seek
discretionary review exactly the same way as state prisoners
who fail to seek such review.
Moreover, the very concept of “finality” invoked by the
parties as most applicable here, based on the decisions of this
Court in Griffith and Teague, suggests why a different
limitation period under § 2244 and § 2255 “makes perfectly
good sense.” Beach, 523 U.S. at 418. There is longstanding
authority that a state prisoner may not seek a writ of habeas
corpus from a federal court until the time has expired for the
state prisoner to file a petition for certiorari on direct review."
wo
'° At one point, the “exhaustion” rule required a state prisoner to first
seek review in this Court, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari,
so that this Court (rather than a lower federal court) might first review the
state cou.i judgment. See Darr v. Buford, 339 U.S. 200, 207 (1950).
-43-
This practice is consistent with the notions of federalism and
comity at issue in Jeague: in a case in which the state
prisoner’s wonviction has not yet become “final” under Griffith,
and this Court announces a new rule applicable to a claim
exhausted on direct appeal, the practice encourages a state
prisoner to file a petition for certiorari and allows this Court
simply to “grant, vacate and remand” the case to the state court
so that it can consider and apply the new rule in the first
instance.” Because a state prisoner cannot or should not file a
petition for habeas corpus under § 2254 until the time to file a
Although this is no longer required, see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435-38
(1963), federal courts still generally do require a state prisoner to wait until
the time has expired for filing a petition for certiorari on direct review
before litigating a petition for habeas corpus. See, e.g., Raines v. New York,
992 F. Supp. 160, 161 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); King v. Cook, 287 F. Supp. 269
(D. Miss. 1968); United States ex rel. Stevens v. McCloskey, 239 F. Supp.
419(S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 345 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1965), rev'd on other grounds,
383 U.S. 234 (1966).
2° One of the core motivating considerations in Griffith was the Court’s
need to “resolve ail cases before us on direct review in light of our best
understanding of governing constitutional principles.” Griffith, 479 U.S. at
323 (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted). In Griffith, the Court
emphasized that, “[a]s a practical matter, of course, we cannot hear each
case pending on direct review and apply the new rule. But we fulfill our
judicial responsibility by instructing the lower courts to apply the new rule
retroactively to cases not yet final.” Jd. This Court’s “GVR” practice
“alleviates the ‘potential for unequal treatment’ that is inherent in our
inability to grant plenary review of all pending cases raising similar issues,”
Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163, 167 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting United
States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 556 n.16 (1982)); it is a “deferential
approach to state courts when the intervening event consist{s] of one of our
own decisions,” id. at 180 (Scalia, J., dissenting); and it “avoid|s} the
unseemliness of holding judgments to be in error on the basis of law that did
not exist when the judgments were rendered below,” id. at 181.
-44-
petition for certiorari expires, it makes sense that the time
limitation in § 2244 begins to run only after that time expires.”'
These same concerns are not implicated by motions under
§ 2255, and there does not appear to be an established
comparable rule (or any reason for it). As explained above,
most § 2255 claims have not been litigated on direct review. In
many cases, the defendant may elect not to file a petition for
certiorari with regard to the claims that were raised on direct
appeal, and instead may wish to proceed directly to litigate
other claims under § 2255 before the very same district court
that originally entered judgment. Here, interests of federalism
and comity do not provide a reason to require the defendant to
wait to file the § 2255 claim until the time expires to file a
petition for certiorari on direct review. The “inter-court”
dynamics at issue with regard to collateral review under § 2255
simply are inherently different from the dynamics at issue with
regard to habeas corpus review under § 2254.”
*! In most cases, of course, there will be no new intervening law before
the time expires to file a petition for certiorari; the state prisoner need not
and might choose not to file a petition for certiorari; and the prisoner then
can bring his claim after the time to file a petition for certiorari expires (and
the time bar in § 2244 begins to run).
” However, if the defendant does file a petition for certiorari, it may
be appropriate to defer litigation of the § 2255 claim and to arrest the
running of the statute of limitations until the petition is resolved. See pp. 31-
35, supra. Courts generally have held that a motion under § 2255 will not
be entertained while there is an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals or
this Court. See, e.g., Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1320-21 (9th Cir.
1987) (“A district court should not en.ertain a habeas corpus petition while
there is an appeal pending in (the Court of Appeals] or in the Supreme
Court.” (emphasis added)); O'Connor v. United States, 133 F.3d 548, 550
(7th Cir. 1998) (“It makes no sense to crank up a collateral attack while a
pending appeal may afford the prisoner the relief he seeks.” (emphasis
added)); United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398, 405 (7th Cir. 1993) (“absent
extraordinary circumstances, the district court should not consider § 2255
-45-
In this regard, the interpretation of the Court of Appeals
allows § 2255 to operate in a manner consistent with the
ordinary operation of a statute of limitations. Fundamentally,
statutes of limitations commence when a cause of action
accrues and a claim may be brought. See, e.g., Zenith Radio
Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971)
(“Generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute [of
limitations] begins to run when a defendant commits an act that
injures a plaintiff's business.”). Here, the “injury” giving rise
to a claim under § 2255 essentially is the (allegedly wrongful)
action of the federal courts in entering and affirming a
judgment of conviction. Once the Court of Appeals issued its
mandate in this case, petitioner was free to return to the district
court and commence the litigation of his § 2255 claims.
Petitioner certainly was not obligated to file a petition for
certiorari, and there are no reasons of comity or federalism to
prohibit him from commencing litigation on his § 2255 claims
once the mandate had issued. Indisputably, a principal purpose
of the statute was to facilitate the prompt adjudication of such
claims. See supra note 6; Gov’t Br. at 25.
Yet, even though the judgment of the Court of Appeals
was final upon the issuance of the mandate and petitioner was
then free to bring his § 2255 claims, under the parties’
interpretation the limitation period would not yet begin to run.
This is inconsistent with the normal operation of a statute of
limitations. The claim had “accrued”; it was known to
petitioner; there was no obstacle to its submission. In these
circumstances, the Court of Appeals properly determined that
motions while a direct appeal is pending”); United States v. Khoury, 901 °
F.2d 975, 976 (11th Cir. 1990) (same). But, with respect to claims under
§ 2255, if the defendant chooses not to file a petition for certiorari on direct
appeal, there is no reason to require the defendant to wait to bring the
§ 2255 claim until the time to file the petition for certiorari has expired.
-46-
the judgment had “become final” and the limitation period was
triggered — even if that limitation period could have been
arrested if petitioner actually had filed a petition for certiorari.
Ultimately, however, the critical point remains that the
relevant language of § 2255 is materially different from the
language of § 2244, and there is no reason to assume that
Congress nevertheless meant exactly the same thing by it.
Moreover, as shown below, there is nothing illogical,
impractical or harmful in the consequences that follow from the
interpretation of the Court of Appeals to suggest that it must be
wrong.
C. The Remaining Arguments Of Impracticality
Advanced By The Parties Also Do Not Favor A
Different Result.
1. The parties also argue that the statute of limitations
in § 2255 should not begin to run “until the law that will _
the defendant’s entitlement to post-conviction relief is s¢ttled,”
and that this “occurs when the defendant’s conviction becomes
‘final’ for Teague purposes, which . . . is when the time for
seeking certiorari expires.” See Gov’t Br. at 24. As explained
above, however, this is a more relevant concern with respect to
petitions under § 2254 than motions under § 2255. Moreover,
defendants have one year in which to file a § 2255 motion,
which is long after any changes in the law may have occurred
during the time that the defendant could have filed a petition
for certiorari on direct review. In the unlikely event that the
defendant filed his § 2255 motion in the bef window between
the time that the Court of Appeals isswed its mandate and the
time expired to file a petition for ce‘tiorari, and the applicable
law then changed during the remainder of that period, the
defendant still would have ten months before the statute of
limitations expired to am<d or supplement his motion. See,
e.g., United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 45 (1st Cir. 1999).
-47-
2. In addition, the parties argue that the interpretation
of the Court of Appeals will encourage the filing of additional
and unnecessary petitions for certiorari. See Gov’t Br. at 25
(stating that “the interpretation that treats a conviction as final
when the court of appeals issues its mandate ‘create[s] a strong
incentive for prisoners to file plainly frivolous petitions for
certiorari for the sole purpose of extending their time for habeas
review” (quoting Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F.3d 1336,
1338 (11th Cir. 2002))). But this concern surely is unfounded.
If the defendant’s purpose is simply to extend the proceedings,
he will file a petition for certiorari in any event, because the
actual filing will garner not only the additional sixty-nine days
between the issuance of the mandate and the time in which a
petition for certiorari must be filed, but also the time during
which this Court considers the petition. The rule that
encourages additional petitions for certiorari is the rule— which
never has been considered by the Court, and is not at issue here
— that the filing of a petition for certiorari automatically arrests
the statute of limitations until the petition is resolved. See id.
at 14 n.3.
3. Nor is there any reason to believe that the decision
of the Court of Appeals will “lead at least some defendants to
prepare their Section 2255 motions and petitions for certiorari
simultaneously.” Jd. at 23. Presumably, if a defendant is
preparing a petition for certiorari, he most likely will file it,
which will extend the time for filing the § 2255 motion.
Further, even if the defendant ultimately were to decide not to
file the petition, he would still have almost ten months to
prepare his § 2255 motion. Litigants face these choices all the
time — in deciding, for example, whether to pursue a petition
for rehearing or an appeal.
In sum, none of the arguments of impracticality advanced
by the parties suggests that Congress acted illogically in
enacting the two different limitation provisions that appear in
-48-
§ 2255 and § 2244. As a result, there simply is no reason to
conclude that the very different words chosen by Congress
should be interpreted to have the same meaning. As the parties
have admitted, the most important thing is simply to have an
established and uniform rule for motions filed under § 2255;
the issue obviously is not whether one mechanism is better than
the other. If, despite the difference in words used, Congress
wishes § 2255 to have the same meaning as § 2244, Congress
of course is free to change the statute.
-49-
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
Davip W. DEBRUIN
Counsel of Record
ELAINE J. G
MONICA R. PINCIAK
JENNER & BLOCK, LLC
601 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
November 14, 2002 (202) 639-6000
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.