Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303

Murphy cooperated in a Pensacola cocaine conspiracy from 2001 to 2003 and pled guilty on December 12, 2003.
District court sentenced Murphy on April 28, 2004, below guidelines due to substantial assistance under § 5K1.1, to concurrent 90-month terms.
Murphy continued cooperation, testifying against co-conspirators, leading the Government to move under Rule 35(b) to reduce his sentence; the court granted relief on May 10, 2007, sealing that the original judgment remained in force in all other respects.
Murphy later filed a pro se § 2255 motion on August 3, 2007, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and tolling issues, claiming the Rule 35(b) reduction reset the AEDPA clock.
The magistrate judge and district court held Murphy’s § 2255 motion untimely, concluding the Rule 35(b) modification did not reset the clock.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Rule 35(b) reductions do not affect finality of the judgment of conviction for § 2255 purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 35(b) reduction resets § 2255 clock	Murphy argues Rule 35(b) creates a new judgment.	United States contends Rule 35(b) does not reset finality.	Rule 35(b) does not reset the § 2255 clock; no new judgment

Byers v. United States, 561 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 35 modification does not reset finality for § 2255)
Sanders v. United States, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rule 35 modifications do not affect finality for § 2255)
Ferreira v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Ferreira II), 494 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2007) (judgment definition in § 2244(d)(1) context; not controlling for § 2255)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1999) (statutory interpretation starting with plain language)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (definition of judgment and finality in habeas context)
Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010) (new judgment intervening between petitions allows non-successive challenge)