On this page
A § 2255 motion can raise a violation of a federal statute or rule — not just the Constitution. But the error must be serious. It must be “a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice” or “an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).
The clearest example is when a later Supreme Court decision shows that what you did was never a federal crime. Below are categories of federal-law claims courts have found can be raised under § 2255.
What federal-law claims have courts heard?
Changes in the Substantive Criminal Law
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974). A claim that, after the appeal, a change in the law showed the movant’s conduct was not a crime could be raised under § 2255.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- United States v. Johnson, 260 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2001). When Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), changed the 18 U.S.C. §924(c) understanding of “use” of a firearm, the defendant raised a cognizable claim that his guilty plea and conviction violated federal law. Some courts have also described this kind of defect as jurisdictional.
Changes in the United States Sentencing Guidelines
Be careful with Guidelines claims. Since the Guidelines became advisory, several appeals courts have held that an ordinary Guidelines miscalculation is not a “miscarriage of justice” that § 2255 can fix. The older cases below may not reflect the current law in your circuit.
- United States v. Marmolejos, 140 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 1998). When an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines clarified the applicable guideline in a manner that benefited the defendant, section 2255 relief was proper. See also Isabel v. United States, 980 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1992)(same).
General Violations of Federal Law
- Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 24 (1999). A district court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right to appeal, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(2) (now Rule 32(j)(1)), can provide a basis for a section 2255 collateral attack — if the defendant suffered prejudice from the court’s omission.
- United States v. Barron, 172 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999)(en banc). A claim that the defendant’s conviction and sentence were obtained pursuant to an improper construction of federal law was cognizable in section 2255 proceedings.
- United States v. Ammar, 919 F.2d 13, 15-17 (3d Cir. 1990). A claim that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 43 by imposing a sentence on the defendant in his absence was cognizable in a section 2255 motion.
- Montgomery v. United States, 853 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1988). A claim that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (now Rule 11(b)(3)) by accepting defendant’s guilty plea without adequate basis was cognizable in section 2255 proceedings.
- United States v. Mannino, 212 F.3d 835 (3d Cir. 2000). When the district court improperly calculated the defendant’s Guideline range by attributing all drugs in a conspiracy to each individual defendant, section 2255 relief was proper.
- United States v. Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888 (4th Cir. 1994). When the district court erroneously sentenced the defendant as a career offender based on a misclassified prior conviction, the defendant had a cognizable section 2255 claim.
Why are these claims hard to win?
Errors under federal statutes and rules happen often in criminal cases. But for § 2255, the error must also be a fundamental defect that causes a complete miscarriage of justice. That is a very high bar.
Courts often dismiss these claims without a hearing when the motion does not explain why the error meets the Hill standard. Plead the claim carefully, and if you can, talk with a lawyer first.
Common questions
The law related to my crime has changed since I was convicted, and my conduct no longer amounts to a federal crime. Can I file a section 2255 motion?
Possibly. If a later Supreme Court decision interpreting the statute shows your conduct was never a crime, that claim can be raised under § 2255. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346-47 (1974). A good example is United States v. Johnson, 260 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2001), where a § 924(c) conviction was challenged after Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), narrowed what “use” of a firearm means.
Timing matters. The one-year deadline, procedural default, and the limits on second motions all still apply. See actual innocence and newly recognized rights.
The Sentencing Guidelines related to my case were amended after I was convicted. Can I seek relief under section 2255 if the amendment benefits me?
Some older cases allowed a § 2255 claim when a later amendment only clarified a Guideline in a way that helps the prisoner. Many courts today are reluctant to hear Guidelines claims under § 2255. If the Sentencing Commission made the amendment retroactive, a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) may be the better route.
My conviction and sentence definitely violate federal law. Is that enough to allow a section 2255 attack?
No. In order for a claim that a conviction or sentence violates federal law to be cognizable in section 2255 proceedings, the violation must also amount to “a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice” or “an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962). These claims are hard to win. If you think you have one, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.
Related pages
Cognizable Claims: The Court Lacked Jurisdiction
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates the Constitution
Cognizable Claims: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Pretrial
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Trial
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Sentencing
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appeal
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence is Otherwise Subject to Collateral Attack
Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.