No. 24-5615
Tags: 28-usc-2255 circuit-split criminal-judgment federal-procedure limitations-period restitution-obligations
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2025-02-21
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Where a criminal judgment is amended to impose restitution obligations that were generically imposed but left undetermined in the original judgment, does the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) run from the date of the amended judgment, as the Second and Tenth Circuits have held, or the date of the original judgment, as the Ninth Circuit alone has concluded?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) runs from the date of the original or amended criminal judgment when restitution obligations are specified
Docket Entries
2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-21
Reply of Merl Simpson submitted.
2025-01-21
Reply of petitioner Merl Simpson filed.
2025-01-08
Brief of United States in opposition submitted.
2025-01-08
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 6, 2025.
2024-12-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 6, 2024 to January 6, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-10-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2024.
2024-10-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2024 to December 6, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-10-07
Response Requested. (Due November 6, 2024)
2024-10-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
2024-09-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-09-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2024)
Attorneys
Merl Simpson
E. Joshua Rosenkranz — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
Elizabeth Richardson-Royer — Richardson-Royer Law, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Sarah M. Harris — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent