United States v. J. Reves, 774 F.3d 562

Bedford and Reves pled guilty to one count of making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and received five years of probation each.
Sunlaw Energy-related defendants were involved in a bid award scheme; several defendants were convicted or had convictions reversed on appeal.
After Skilling narrowed honest services mail fraud, the district court vacated some co-defendants’ convictions, prompting Reves and Bedford to seek § 2255 relief.
Bedford filed his § 2255 motion on June 7, 2010, one day after his probation ended on June 6, 2010.
Reves filed his § 2255 motion on May 27, 2010, within one year of final judgment but after subsequent relevant opinions affected other defendants.
The district court denied both motions as untimely; Bedford is the subject of a jurisdictional challenge under the in-custody requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bedford’s § 2255 motion was filed while in custody	Bedford argues extended time applies, keeping him in custody on Monday.	The in-custody requirement ends when probation ends; Rule 6 extensions don't apply.	Jurisdiction lacking; motion dismissed for lack of custody.
Whether Reves's § 2255 motion was timely	Exonerations of co-defendants create new facts supporting timeliness and tolling.	New opinions about others do not alter Reves’s conviction or entitle tolling.	Untimely; no extraordinary circumstances or tolling apply; waiver applies.
Whether Reves validly waived § 2255 rights in his plea	Waiver should not bar subsequent challenges based on new law.	Waiver is express, knowing, and voluntary and enforceable.	Waiver enforceable; § 2255 motion barred.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (narrowed honest services mail fraud to bribery/kickbacks)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (in custody requirement for § 2255 understood)
United States v. Bennett, 147 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional issues in § 2255 timing)
Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1998) (in-custody threshold must be resolved first)
Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for actual innocence claims)
United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1994) (validity of waivers in § 2255 proceedings)
United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2003) (de novo review and standard of § 2255 review)
United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional and tolling principles in § 2255 cases)