United States v. Alaniz, 5 F.4th 632

Alaniz pleaded guilty in 2013 to marijuana distribution conspiracy and money laundering and received concurrent sentences totaling over 20 years; the district court informed him at sentencing of his right to appeal but no notice of appeal was filed.
Within one year Alaniz filed a pro se § 2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance claims, including that counsel failed to file a requested appeal (failure-to-file); his factual allegations initially focused on a whispered request at sentencing.
After counsel was appointed, an evidentiary hearing was held; testimony also introduced broader allegations that counsel failed over the course of representation to advise Alaniz of appellate rights and to consult about the merits of an appeal.
In a post-hearing memorandum Alaniz expressly split the appellate-related claim into three theories: (1) failure to advise of appellate rights; (2) failure to file after a specific request; and (3) failure to consult about an appeal.
The district court found the failure-to-file claim untimely on the facts and declined to allow amendment to add the failure-to-advise and failure-to-consult claims, concluding they were new, untimely claims that did not "relate back" to the timely claim.
The Fifth Circuit granted a COA limited to whether the new claims relate back to the timely failure-to-file claim, and affirmed the district court, holding the new claims did not relate back.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure-to-advise and failure-to-consult claims relate back to the timely failure-to-file claim under Rule 15(c)/Mayle	Alaniz: the appellate-rights claims arise from the same core of operative facts and his original pro se filings cited relevant legal standards, so the new claims relate back	Government/district court: the new claims differ in time and type (a discrete sentencing whisper vs. counsel’s conduct over the entire representation), so they do not relate back and are time-barred	The court held the claims do not relate back and affirmed denial of leave to amend (untimely claims)
Standard of review for relation-back determination	Alaniz argued for de novo review (or at least that the court should reach the relation-back merits)	Government treated the district court’s denial as within discretion; court noted circuits split but said it need not decide because Alaniz loses under either standard	The court declined to resolve the review standard and ruled the relation-back question against Alaniz under either de novo or abuse-of-discretion review

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (new claims relate back only if they arise from the same core of operative facts)
United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675 (new ineffective-assistance theories do not automatically relate back when they involve distinct types or phases of counsel misfeasance)
United States v. Roe, 913 F.3d 1285 (Tenth Circuit: failure-to-consult claim did not relate back to a failure-to-file claim when facts differed in time and type)
McClellon v. Lone Star Gas Co., 66 F.3d 98 (relation-back requires factual overlap, not mere legal theory expansion)
Hodge v. United States, 554 F.3d 372 (Third Circuit discussion of relation-back for appellate-rights claims)
United States v. Saenz, 282 F.3d 354 (relation-back doctrine in §2255 context)