Zack Dyab v. United States, 855 F.3d 919

In 2010 Dyab pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371) and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957); sentenced to concurrent terms (5 and 10 years) and ordered to pay roughly $6.4 million restitution.
Dyab filed multiple postconviction challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2012 and later; prior motions were denied and appeals affirmed.
In October 2014 the government moved to amend the judgment to reflect that co-conspirator Barbara Puro is jointly and severally liable for part of the restitution and to update payee identities/addresses; the motion was filed electronically and (according to the government) not mailed to Dyab.
The district court entered an amended judgment in November 2014 that did not change Dyab’s total restitution amount or his sentence, but updated payee information and one co-conspirator’s joint liability. Dyab says he first learned of the amendment in October 2015.
In November 2015 Dyab filed a § 2255 motion asserting (1) a Fifth Amendment due-process violation from lack of notice/opportunity to be heard on the amended judgment, and (2) actual innocence of the money laundering conviction. The district court denied relief; this appeal followed.

Issue	Dyab's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Dyab can challenge the amended restitution judgment via § 2255 as a due-process claim	The amended judgment was entered without notice or hearing, violating due process and depriving him of appeal rights	A § 2255 motion attacks a sentence (right to release); restitution corrections are not cognizable under § 2255	Denied — court holds due-process challenge to restitution amendment is not cognizable in a § 2255 motion (affirmed on that ground)
Whether Dyab’s challenge to his money-laundering conviction is barred as a second or successive § 2255 motion or is allowed because the amended judgment is a new judgment	The amended judgment is an intervening new judgment (Magwood framework), so his § 2255 challenge to the conviction is not successive	The amendment did not change sentence or restitution amount; it was ministerial and did not create a new judgment for purposes of successive-motions rules	Denied — amendment did not produce a new judgment; motion is successive and untimely, so § 2255 relief is barred without appellate authorization

Shephard v. United States, 735 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 2255 does not reach restitution-only disputes)
United States v. Bernard, 351 F.3d 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 targets release from custody, not restitution disputes)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (second-or-successive inquiry depends on which judgment is challenged)
Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (the sentence is the judgment in a federal criminal case)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (sentence modifications under § 3582(c) are limited adjustments, not new sentences)
United States v. Jones, 796 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2015) (§ 3582 adjustments do not create a new judgment for successive § 2255 purposes)
Johnson v. United States, 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (importing Magwood inquiry into § 2255 context)
Marmolejos v. United States, 789 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (clerical corrections under Rule 36 do not reset successive-motions bar)
King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 2015) (discussing when intervening resentencing produces a new judgment for successive-motions analysis)