2254
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The Counting Thread
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Section 2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
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.
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the
court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United
States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the
issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with
respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered
without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not
authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that
there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional
rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to
collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment
aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a
new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring
the production of the prisoner at the hearing.
An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order
entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a
writ of habeas corpus.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant
to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the
applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court
which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief,
unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this
section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created
by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from
making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled Substances
Act, in all proceedings brought under this section, and any
subsequent proceedings on review, the court may appoint counsel,
except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court
pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under this
section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to
contain -
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.Comment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Yesterday 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
- An IR35 bill of £19m for National Resources Wales may be just the tip of its iceberg Nov 7 09:20
- Micro-entity accounts: Overview, and how to file with HMRC Nov 6 09:27
- Will HMRC’s 9% interest rate bully you into submission? Nov 5 09:10
- Business Account with ANNA Money Nov 1 15:51
- Autumn Budget 2024: Reeves raids contractor take-home pay Oct 31 14:11
Comment