When a Later § 2255 Targets the Amended Judgment

A district court may label the next filing as a second or successive § 2255 motion and transfer it to the court of appeals. On September 15, 2026, a Sixth Circuit panel granted remand in In re Augustin, No. 25-5655 (Read the decision (PDF)), holding that when an earlier successful § 2255 vacated part of the criminal judgment and produced an amended judgment, a later § 2255 attacking what was left is not automatically in that category.

Why the court remanded

The court treated “second or successive” as a term of art, not a simple count of how many motions were filed. It cited Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 511 (2020), and In re Hill, 81 F.4th 560, 568 (6th Cir. 2023) (en banc).

Under that framework, when a later motion challenges a new judgment rather than the judgment already attacked in a prior § 2255 motion, it is not “second or successive.” The court relied on King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154, 157 (6th Cir. 2015), and In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir. 2016), for the point that a partially vacated sentence can leave an intervening judgment that may be challenged without the § 2255(h) gate. It also cited Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 334, 341–42 (2010).

The panel explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) requires a court granting collateral relief to “vacate and set the judgment aside” before correcting or resentencing. After the district court granted an earlier motion following United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), it vacated an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction, shortened the sentence accordingly, left other counts in place, and entered an amended judgment. The court of appeals had affirmed that remedy in United States v. Augustin, 16 F.4th 227, 233 (6th Cir. 2021).

The panel then tied vacatur to the judgment that remains on the record. It quoted Hewitt v. United States, 606 U.S. 419, 431 (2025), that when a judgment is vacated, “the law acts as though the vacated [judgment] never occurred,” so what remains is the newer judgment, which may be attacked as of right without the successive-motion bar. See Magwood, 561 U.S. at 341–42; King, 807 F.3d at 157.

The Sixth Circuit said a full resentencing is not required for that rule: if the district court corrects the sentence after vacating the judgment, the prior judgment is still void and the amended judgment is still new for this purpose. It distinguished sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Criminal Rule 35(b), which do not create a new judgment. See Freeman v. Wainwright, 959 F.3d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 2020).

The court denied reassignment to a different district judge. It cited the general standard that reassignment is rare and noted other litigation was pending in the same court.

What it means for a § 2255 motion

• Check which judgment you are attacking. If the motion targets only the amended judgment entered after earlier § 2255 relief, the “second or successive” label may not apply even though the case has seen more than one motion. Gatekeeping under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) is tied to that analysis, not a mere filing sequence.

• Compare judgment-changing relief with sentence tweaks that leave the judgment. The opinion carves out § 3582(c) and Rule 35(b); not every docket entry creates a fresh judgment for Magwood-style review.

• Expect the district court to look at transfer rules. When a court thinks § 2255(h) applies, it may still transfer the motion before ruling on the merits, so the question can reach the court of appeals early.

Pull the judgment stack: the original judgment, any order granting § 2255 relief, and the amended judgment. Request a consultation and tell us what happened.