Circuit split · criminal procedure

Whether the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) runs from the date the Supreme Court initially recognized the asserted right or from the date that right was made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

Dodd v. United States365 F3D 1273
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · April 16, 2004
“In light of the circuit split and the absence of controlling authority in this Circuit, prudent petitioners will treat the earlier date — the date on which the right is newly.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

28 U.S.C. § 2255 — Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence

“(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. (b) Unless the motion and the files and records …”

Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

DiscussedGarcia278 F.3d 1210
“In Garcia, a panel of, this Court recognized but did not decide the issue of when the § 2255(3) limitations period begins to run.” — Dodd v. United States, acknowledging the split
Discussed · 4th Cir.In re Vial115 F.3d 1192
“the limitations period has not yet begun to run,” In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 , 1197 n.” — Dodd v. United States, acknowledging the split
Discussed · 5th Cir.Lopez248 F.3d 433
“Therefore the retroactivity on collateral review aspect is not contained within the term 'right[,]’ ” Lopez, 248 F.3d at 433 (emphasis added), but rather qualifies and limits it.” — Dodd v. United States, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Statutes:: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ·; 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) ·; 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8(2)

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.