Notes on Federal § 2255 Court Decisions
These are short notes on court decisions about § 2255 motions. Each note names the court decision it discusses. Every case turns on its own facts. Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
In re Augustin: Later § 2255 and Amended Judgments
Sixth Circuit held a § 2255 on surviving counts may attack the amended judgment first, not by default as second or successive under § 2255(h).
Wilson: § 2255 Hearing on § 851 Advice and Acquitted Conduct
Wilson's § 2255 order shows when a Delaware court will hold a hearing on § 851 plea advice, acquitted-conduct warnings, and lesser-included offense advice.
Eltareb: A Jury Waiver Can Defeat a Later § 2255 Claim
On October 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that a written jury-trial waiver survived a § 2255 challenge based on a ruling the judge made after the waiver.
McLellan: A § 2255 COA Must Name a Constitutional Claim
On October 30, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a § 2255 certificate of appealability that named a timing dispute but no constitutional claim.
Plea Colloquy Answers Can Defeat a Later § 2255 Claim
On October 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that sworn plea answers can end a § 2255 claim about investigation or sentence advice without a live hearing.
After a Guilty Plea, Prejudice Means You Would Have Gone to Trial
In Shelton, a § 2255 claim about a missed statute-of-limitations defense failed on one point: no showing he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.
A Three-Minute Talk About an Appeal Was Enough to Consult
In United States v. Cota-Higuera, the Tenth Circuit held a lawyer who briefly discussed an appeal after sentencing met the Flores-Ortega duty to consult.
Can a § 2255 Motion Challenge Restitution or a Fine?
Usually not. Courts hold that restitution, fines and assessments are not custody, so § 2255 can't be used to attack them. Here is what can be done instead.
Berry v. United States: Supreme Court to Decide Whether a Circuit Split Earns a Certificate of Appealability
On October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to decide if a split among the circuits is enough for a certificate of appealability in a § 2255 case.
United States v. Anderson: Conflicting Sworn Statements About an Appeal Request Require a § 2255 Hearing
The Ninth Circuit held a judge must hold a hearing when a prisoner and his lawyer swear to different stories about whether he asked for an appeal.
Barrett v. United States: One Act Cannot Bring Two Convictions Under § 924(c) and § 924(j)
The Court held Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and § 924(j) for a single act.
Bowe v. United States: Successive § 2255 Rules Are Not the Same as State Habeas Rules
The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)'s bar on repeat claims does not apply to federal prisoners' successive § 2255 motions.
Hewitt v. United States: Resentencing After Vacatur Gets First Step Act Benefits
The Court held that when an old § 924(c) sentence is vacated, the First Step Act's lower penalties apply at the new sentencing.
A § 2255 motion does not automatically stay related civil cases
A pending § 2255 motion does not automatically stay a related civil lawsuit. A federal court in Indiana refused to pause one. What it means.
Duplicate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts and § 2255
A court granted a § 2255 motion where the lawyer failed to object to a gun counted twice: a § 924(c) conviction plus a guidelines increase.
United States v. Edmonds: a § 2255 motion in the record
A real federal § 2255 case walked through step by step: the claims raised, how the court read the trial record, and why the motion was denied.
Trial attorneys cannot outsource their duty to advise on appeal (United States v. Herring, 10th Cir. 2019)
In United States v. Herring (10th Cir. 2019), the court held a trial lawyer must consult with the client about an appeal and ordered a hearing.
Texas “deadly conduct” and the ACCA residual clause after United States v. Davis
A federal court held Texas deadly conduct is not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, in a successive § 2255 case after Johnson.
Fogle’s Filings Illustrate How Not to Challenge a Federal Conviction
Sovereign-citizen arguments and attacks on the § 2255 deadline fail in federal court. Jared Fogle’s post-conviction filings show why.
10th Circuit: Withdrawal of a meritless § 2255 motion and the successive-motion bar
A prisoner withdrew a § 2255 motion after admitting it had no merit. The Tenth Circuit counted it as his first motion, barring a later one.
Questions about your case? Request a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.