Vitrano v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12471

Vitrano pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and was subject to a domestic violence injunction, resulting in a 120-month sentence under § 924(a)(2).
On direct appeal, this court upheld two earlier ACCA-related rulings and remanded for resentencing under ACCA, with an upgraded range of 235–293 months, culminating in a 360-month sentence based on additional violent conduct evidence.
During § 2255 proceedings, Vitrano claimed ineffective assistance and constitutional errors, and that the discharge certificates (one ATF-held, one laminated by Vitrano) could defeat ACCA counts if valid.
The government’s discovery and forensic testing showed both discharge certificates were likely fake, leading to new charges against Vitrano for perjury and corruption in connection with the forged documents.
Vitrano sought to amend his initial § 2255 Motion under Rule 15(a) to raise Chambers-based arguments (and later other issues), which the district court treated as a second/successive petition and dismissed without AEDPA authorization.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendment is a second or successive §2255 motion	Vitrano argues amendment is not a second/successive motion because the first motion had not become final.	The government contends amendment is effectively a second §2255 motion and requires Court of Appeals permission.	The issue requires remand to assess whether amendment constitutes a new, allowable motion.
Whether the district court properly treated the amendment as a second/successive petition	Vitrano maintains that the amendment should be analyzed as part of ongoing initial proceedings, not as a separate second filing.	District court treated amendment as a distinct second/successive petition barred without authorization.	Vacate and remand to determine proper treatment of the amendment under AEDPA.

Johnson v. United States, 196 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 1999) (guides when amending an initial §2255 petition before final disposition)
Felder v. McVicar, 113 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 1997) (clarifies treatment of dismissed or abandoned motions for AEDPA purposes)
Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 2000) (discusses amendment versus new petition and district court discretion)
Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2004) (prohibits inventive captioning and controls petition type by substance)
Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2000) (addresses counting of prior petitions for AEDPA purposes)
Garrett v. United States, 178 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 1999) (distinguishes when a motion is a true petition to amend versus other filings)
Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (establishes intervening Supreme Court change in ACCA landscape (relevant to arguments))