United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726

Olvera was sentenced in Oct 2010 to 168 months for conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute.
Direct appeal was affirmed in Aug 2011 and Olvera did not seek certiorari.
The district court entered an amended judgment in Dec 2012 reducing the sentence to 120 months under Rule 35(b).
Olvera filed a pro se § 2255 motion in Jan 2013 arguing the 1-year period restarted after the amended judgment.
The district court dismissed the motion as time-barred, citing finality, no tolling, and non-retroactivity of Alleyne; the district court and COA addressed two issues on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit affirmatively held the § 2255 motion was untimely and Alleyne is not retroactive to collateral review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does amended judgment restart § 2255(f)(1) clock?	Olvera argues amendment restarts the period.	Olvera's final judgment remains final; amendment does not revive the period.	Amendment does not restart the one-year period.
Is Alleyne retroactive to collateral review for § 2255 timing?	Alleyne retroactively applies, triggering § 2255(f)(3).	Alleyne is not retroactive; not tolled under § 2255(f)(3).	Alleyne is not retroactive; the motion remains time-barred.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (Alleyne extended Apprendi but not retroactive on collateral review)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply retroactively)
Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (prior framework for mandatory minimums; discussed in Alleyne context)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (requirement that facts increasing penalty be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Kemper, 735 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2013) (Alleyne not retroactive per Fifth Circuit)
U.S. v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi did not meet watershed exception)
U.S. v. Redd, 735 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (Alleyne not retroactive)