Wofford v. Scott

pos- in the felon incarceration on term of CARNES, Circuit Judge: count, to be followed of a firearm session Wofford, prisoner, a federal Charlie He is supervised release. by years of five he failed have three claims seeks to the Northern in presently incarcerated § 2255 motion first 28 U.S.C. his raise Georgia. District of merits. His and decided addressed filed February Wofford amended problem is Georgia a 28 U.S.C. Middle District Penalty Effective Death and Antiterrorism his conviction and § 2255 motion to vacate 104-132, (AEDPA), Act Pub.L. No. 1) sentence, plea was his arguing that: (1996), prison- permits federal Stat. 2) received ineffective as- involuntary, he challenging his file a second er motion attorney counsel because his sistance of underlying it the conviction sentence regarding the him incorrect advice gave We of circumstances. only the narrowest imposed, be would length of sentence that to file sec- his earlier denied 3) failed to court follow the district § 2255 motion. ond Procedure 11. Rule Criminal Federal an us on now back before is Wofford an eviden- without That motion was denied court’s rebuff from the district appeal this Court re- appeal, tiary hearing. On remedy, as the habeas attempt to use the district court for case to manded the to circumvent in 28 U.S.C. codified hearing on the ineffective evidentiary an §of 2255. requirements the second v. United issue. See assistance Wofford interesting with appeal presents us His Cir.1993). (11th States, F.2d 1555 language concerning the questions remand, evidentiary hearing an After application shall says § 2255 that again an order court issued the district has if a 2255 motion entertained be appeal motion. On denying denied, “unless also been affirmed, denial, Court this from inadequate or by motion is certiorari. See denied Supreme deten- of his legality to test the ineffective States, v. United 43 F.3d 679 and has injustice resulted manifest re- Wofford (11th Cir.1994), denied, reh’g en banc 74 flecting error of a most fundamental char- (11th denied, Cir.), F.3d 1257 cert. 519 U.S. acter. Wofford asserts that 2241 relief 136 L.Ed.2d 45 necessary statutory because no other remedy attacking remains for his sentence. later, Several months after effective date of the AEDPA amendments to The magistrate judge issued a Report 2255, § ap- Wofford filed in this an and Recommendation suggesting dismissal plication for certification to file in the dis- § 2241 petition, and the district § trict court a In second 2255 motion. court subsequently issued its own order application Wofford raised the follow- doing so. appeals Wofford the district 1) ing issues: whether the district court order, court’s which we affirm. jurisdiction impose non-parola- lacked to ble by supervised sentence followed re- II. DISCUSSION 2) lease; whether the United States Sen- clearly Wofford’s claims are barred from tencing Commission’s failure to allow the §a 2255 motion proceeding by virtue of application retroactive of a three-level re- the successive motion restrictions enacted duction in acceptance sentence for of re- by AEDPA and now contained in 28 sponsibility constituted a violation of fun- 2244(b). §§ U.S.C. 2255 and Wofford and damental fairness and cruel and unusual government that, do, agree on and we punishment prohibited by the Fifth and too, as by previous evidenced our denial of Eighth Amendments to the United States application his for certification to file a 3) Constitution; and whether the district § second 2255 motion. The issue is finding court’s that Wofford was a career whether he may now resort to habeas re- criminal improperly predicated was upon 2241, § lief under depends the court’s belief that it could not examine meaning of following language in underlying offenses in making that § 2255: determination. This Court denied Wof- An application for a writ of ford’s habeas file a successive mo- cor- vacate, pus in prisoner tion to behalf of a because the motion who au- neither is presented newly discovered thorized to apply by evidence es- for relief tablishing pursuant section, innocence nor asserted a retro- to this shall not be en- actively applicable new rule of constitution- if appears tertained applicant that the unavailable, al law that previously was relief, has apply motion, failed to by required for second by motions the AED- to the court him, which sentenced or PA § amendments to 28 U.S.C. 2255. that such relief, court has him denied unless it also remedy

Thereafter, in attempt a third to obtain by motion relief, inadequate is collateral petition Wofford filed a ineffective legality test the his detention. writ of error coram in nobis the Middle Georgia, District of raising issues identical added). (emphasis argues Wofford in those his second 2255 motion. the underscored language entitles him to petition denied, That and Wofford did have his claims decided in a peti- appeal. tion, because the second and successive effort, fourth prevents and latest motion bar him Wofford from having them in filed Georgia Northern District of in decided 2255 motion proceeding, present petition, which styled he as making remedy by “the motion [ ] inade- one for a writ of corpus pursuant habeas quate or ineffective to test the legality of 28 U.S.C. 2241. On the basis of the his detention.” same three issues for which this Court has A. Hayman The Opinion already denied permission him to file a second history present purpose Wofford’s of and behind petition argues illegal his sentence is relationship to the habeas that most and also ensured such cases is codified remedy, which proceeding would be con- Hayman, v. instances States United discussed necessary L.Ed. 232 in the district where the 72 S.Ct. ducted U.S. mini- in 1948 “to was enacted were located. See Section and records witnesses in habeas encountered mize the difficulties 210-19, 72 at 268-72. The S.Ct. id. affording the same corpus hearings clarify § 2255 was to and sim- purpose of fo- convenient and more rights another provide expedi- an procedure and plify the at 272. rum.” 342 U.S. court with- sentencing tious with the habeas practical difficulties corpus. See id. out resort prob- administrative remedy were “serious no intent at 272. There was S.Ct. requirement resulting from lems” remedy any § 2255 different make the brought and decided be proceedings those remedy that had scope from the habeas at 210- incarceration. Id. district of in the them: “On the available to previously been at 268-72. 72 S.Ct. to minimize contrary, purpose the sole ha- the the enactment of Before in habeas cor- encountered the difficulties impris- a petitioner for proceeding beas rights by affording the same pus hearings than the one where in a district other oned convenient forum.” in another and more far conducted been tried was the case had 272. at 72 S.Ct. at Id. records and wit- the relevant from where clause lan- then of the What an unusual That was not were. nesses that, About into 2255? guage inserted pointed Hayman The Court occurrence. very helpful. opinion is not Hayman the in which a habeas case example to the of without elaboration simply It observes coerced alleged he had been prisoner the proce- where the Section a case “[i]n by the United States pleading guilty into ineffec- ‘inadequate or dure is shown be other federal officers. Attorney and two tive,’ that the habeas provides the Section in the North- had to be held hearing open remain to afford corpus remedy shall prison- where the ern District of California incarcerated, though necessary hearing.” the three Id. at even er was the (footnote omitted). involved were located federal officers We turn S.Ct. at the occurred and where the events Texas history guid- further for legislative to the at See id. had been obtained. conviction clause. meaning of the ance on the Moreover, because 72 S.Ct. at 269. brought had to be proceedings History habeas Legislative B. incarceration, the in the district of decided years ago as began fifty-six Section few districts cases were bunched the committee on habe- proposed by a bill lo- prisons were larger federal where of of the Judicial Conference procedure as Supreme As the cated at that time. form, original In its States. the United it, in whose District Courts put “the few part: in relevant provided, that bill penal jurisdiction major federal territorial judge of United circuit or district No required were are located institutions for an shall entertain States number of habeas inordinate handle an of corpus behalf writ of habeas of the far from the scene corpus actions apply for authorized prisoner who is facts, witnesses and homes of the ” provi- pursuant to the by motion relief Id. sentencing court.... records section, this unless sions of 213-14, at 269. at practi- not be been or will that it has not § 2255 ad- of 28 U.S.C. The enactment discharge right have his cable to from problems aris- the administrative dressed motion be- on such custody determined remedy by substitut- from the habeas ing necessity presence cause of collateral prisoner it in federal ing for reasons. hearing, or other sentencing in the remedy attack cases of Sen- the Judicial Conference Report of out spread both That solution court. Session, September Judges, handling ior Circuit districts the burden among the 1943, p. 24 (referring allowing corpus. the bill as statute sion recourse habeas “A”) added).1 (emphasis The Judicial Con Report explained: The Senate adoption ference the bill’s recommended where, take care of [T]o situations September 1943 session and subse reasons, practical it is not advisable to quently reaffirmed that recommendation petitioner prison remove a from and to during September sessions of 1944 and be certain that the remedies afforded 22; Report 1945. See id. at of the Judicial sufficient, prisoners fully will be the sec- Judges, Sep Conference of Senior Circuit goes tion prescribing further than Session, 1944, 22; p. tember Report of the remedy. exceptional these Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit it may instances where seem that Session, 1945, Judges, September p. motion remedy practicable, is not be- The bill to the was submitted House of prisoner’s “inability cause to be Representatives H.R. October present hearing 1, 1945 and to the Senate as S. 1451 on reasons,” corpus for other 3, 1945, during October the first session of made It available. will be noted that Congress. the 79th See 91 Cong. Rec. provided there is a wide discretion in the (1945) (H.R.4233); 91 Cong. Rec. where, use corpus of habeas “for other (1945) (S.1451); see also Hon. John J. reasons,” the motion seems not Parker, Limiting the Abuse Habeas “practicable.” This will take care of 171, Corpus, (1948); 8 F.R.D. 173 n. 8 exceptional practical situation which Randall, Comment, Brendan W. United may arise in any particular case. Cooper: States v. The Writ Error Co 1526, S.Rep. Sess., No. Cong., 80th 2d at 2 Morgan ram Nobis and the Footnote Par (1948). adox, 1063, 74 Minn. L.Rev. 1106 n. 71 report accompanying S. dis- (1990) Record). (citing Congressional the only cussed not the advantages pro- of the At point, change some was made to the posed remedy, new motion but also its underscored it language so that read: “un disadvantages, stating that “[t]he main dis- appears less it it that has not or will been advantages remedy of the motion are ... practicable not be rights to determine his during expense [t]he risk or the of trans- discharge from custody on such a mo porting prisoner the to the district where tion inability present because to be convicted[,] he was and the incentive to file hearing at the on such or for other baseless motions in order to ‘joy have a Randall, reasons.” See at supra, 1106 n. away ride’ 4233, prison from the Government (quoting H.R. 79th Cong., 1st (1945) 1526, expense.” S.Rep. 1451, No. at 3. Sess. and S. With Cong., 79th (1945)). regard 1st to those explanation disadvantages, report Sess. No the for noted, change given, provision the was but it “It is that thought to be the ... (in merely grammatical in corpus nature. for habeas the district of con- finement) ‘practicable where it is not During that first session of the 79th * * * determine his rights on such a mo- Congress, neither chamber acted on the tion’ will furnish a sufficient discretion in It bill. was reintroduced in the House judge the or court before whom habeas during the second session as H.R. corpus is filed to evaluate and defeat the then, but no action taken on was it either. above (1946). ‘disadvantages’ to a large degree.” See 92 Rec. Cong. During the S.Rep. No. at 3. Congress, Report 80th The Senate the bill was reintroduced leaves savings the no doubt that the language Senate as S. 20. See 94 Cong. Rec. (1948). proposed 7709-10 in the Report remedy The Senate motion ac- the time companying gave practical report S. 20 of the practical difficulties was aimed at prob- as the savings provi- reason clause lems and might difficulties which arise cussion, here, 1. The Judicial actually Conference only recom- and the one discussed bills, jurisdictional mended two bill and a jurisdictional bill. procedural bill. The one relevant to our dis- addition, reviser’s section, en- shall not be pursuant to this ineffective,” is than the or broader quate applicant that the appears if it tertained problems language, which “practicable” old motion, relief, apply by to has failed intended to language the was suggests new him, or court which sentenced the problems. just practical cover more than relief, has denied him that court such an- by suggested conclusion is The same remedy it also that the unless the earlier between ver- other difference is or by inadequate finally ineffective and the one provision sion of the . ex-, legality his detention. the test changed to provision .of the was enacted: added). (1994) applicant the (emphasis § where 28 2255 cover cases plicitly U.S.C. and been denied already applied for had in nothing found Unfortunately, we have (“or court has de- that such § 2255 relief history explaining why the legislative the relief’). along considered him When nied changed or what language was relevant (“inadequate or language with the broader some language means. There is the new to us ineffective”), change suggests § thought Congress indication clause savings of the was the final version 20 without substantive incorporated S. circumstances apply in some intended Report the House change. example, For had or § relief was unavailable where comprehen- accompanying H.R. the prac- than other for reasons been denied habe- states: “The legislation, revision sive the location of with tical ones associated has corpus chapter [of bill] revision as not free from question is the court. The legislation with to conform been rewritten is doubt, think the better view that but we approved by Congress pending with more is concerned savings clause of the United States.” Conference Judicial difficulties.2 We turn Sess., practical than Cong., 1st No. 80th H.R.Rep. savings history clause established of the v. United Circuit in Triestman 2. The Second Cir.1997), (2d States, where application to circumstances F.3d 374-75 limited Dorsainvil, conducting Circuit in In re practical Third difficulties there are Cir.1997), (3d argu- rejected F.3d § in the district where proceeding legislative government by ments § question “inadequate now to the of what circumstances 2255’s or ineffective” reme- practical clause, diffi- involving other than those dy savings and said “the by are covered clause. § culties by afforded 2255 is not rendered inade- quate merely or ineffective because an in- C. Decisions From Other Circuits dividual has been unable to obtain relief provision under that ... or because an Four of our sister circuits have had oc- recently procedurally individual fil- meaning casion address barred from ” 2255’s clause the wake of the ing 2255 motion.... 115 F.3d at States, (internal Bailey omitted). decision in v. United 1194 & n. 5 citations U.S. 133 L.Ed.2d 472 Next came the Third Circuit’s decision (1995). That case involved 18 U.S.C. Dorsainvil, (1997), in In re 119 F.3d 245 924(c)(1), punishes anyone who response which was also issued in to an during uses or carries a firearm application for certification to file a second drug trafficking relation to a crime. The or successive 2255 motion raising a Bai- Supreme Bailey interpreted Court in ley claim. After concluding appli- prong use narrowly the statute to re- requirements cant had failed to meet the firearm, quire employment active an filing such a the Court turned interpretation different from the one that argument his alternative the re- adopted by had been a number of federal placed strictions AEDPA on second and 142-43, appeals courts. See 516 U.S. successive 2255 motions violated the Due result, prisoners 116 S.Ct. at 505. aAs Process of the Fifth Clause Amendment who had been convicted under an errone- I, and the Suspension Clause of Article 924(c)(1), interpretation ous or who Section 9 of the Constitution. been, thought they collaterally at- The Third if Circuit feared that no other tacked their convictions as inconsistent judicial avenue of review were available Bailey with the decision. Those collateral factually one who was or legally innocent produced attacks appellate decisions in intervening result of an statutory discussing four circuits clause interpretation, “we would be faced with of 2255. thorny constitutional issue.” 119 F.3d The first such decision to be issued was It avoided that issue concluding Vial, (4th Cir.1997) (en In re 115 F.3d 1192 circumstances, that “under narrow peti- a banc), prisoner’s applica- involved a tioner in Dorsainvil’s uncommon situation tion for a permitting certification him to may resort to the writ of corpus § file a second or successive 2255 motion § codified under 28 U.S.C. 2241.” Id. The in order to raise a claim based on the “uncommon situation” that the Third Cir- decision, Bailey which had been issued cuit said savings was within the clause is § after his first 2255 motion had been filed described, particularly more and the hold- and denied. The Fourth Circuit denied limited, ing of the decision following to file a second quotation opinion: from the Bailey because the decision did not fit § within do not exceptions suggest the narrow We 2255 would for second or be § “inadequate successive 2255 or motions as that ineffective” so as to en- tightened had been up by petitioner § AEDPA. able a second invoke opinion, course of its merely the Court noted petitioner because that is unable petitioner agree was sentenced. We provisions with the effect of its legislative history those two decisions that the clause of 2255 is relevant. See id. Like government's way. does not lean the The Court, however, we have been unable to legis- Seventh Circuit has that “the observed anything legislative find useful in AEDPA’s history lative is uninformative.” In re Daven- history relating to the clause. See 147 (7th Cir.1998). port, 147 F.3d ("Again, helpful legis- F.3d at 609 there is no Seventh Circuit is correct that the intent of history.”) lative Congress concerning that enacted AEDPA “the in which seri- re- sured itself that cases stringent gatekeeping to meet amended constitutional questions ous as to 2255’s quirements effectively eviscer- holding a would relatively Such validity presented are will be amending intent Congress’s ate few, per- interpretation our does not [so] However, allowing someone § 2255. pris- ordinary disgruntled mit the federal a position of unusual Dorsainvil’s —that corpus.” for habeas Id. at petition oner to opportunity had no earlier prisoner who But rule 377-78. the Second Circuit’s for a crime his conviction challenge Congress placed lift the restrictions does intervening change substan- that an motions when- upon second successive even when may negate, tive law “justice would seem judge ever a believes change that such a concedes government prisoner’s for the claim to demand a forum retroactively hard- applied should be —is pressing a as to cast doubt on so fashion gatekeeping ly likely to undermine constitutionality of the law that would §of 2255. provisions petition.” § 2255 Id. at 378. bar the Id. at 251. agree We with the Seventh Circuit’s say turn to what The Second Circuit’s “too criticism of the Triestman rule as in the clause means practical of indefinite” to meet “the needs claim Bailey context of a second judicial Davenport, enforcement.” In re States, 124 in Triestman v. United came (7th Cir.1998). A “seri- F.3d of Going beyond the facts F.3d 361 question” standard is ous constitutional a case, announced the Second Circuit “tough a issue” or only about as definite as § 2241 will be rule under which broad standard “hard set of circumstances” movant from free a available to Moreover, apparent is no be. there would or succes- AEDPA’s restrictions on second the cru- or textual nexus between logical permit a motions whenever failure to sive language or ineffective” “inadequate cial “raise serious constitutional remedy would difficulty constitu- 2255 and the 124 F.3d at 377. questions.” claim to of that allowing Bailey may arise because thought that tional issue § 2255 by prisoner whose first be raised interpretation. language’s that deci- adjudicated before motion was the fourth fed- The Seventh Circuit was judicial deny would sion was announced the sav- grapple court to with appeals eral prove his person “a who can review to Bailey of a issue in the context ings clause existing record— actual innocence on (7th Davenport, re 147 F.3d 605 claim. In effectively raised not have and who could Cir.1998), prisoners, involved two federal at an earlier time.” claim of innocence unsuccessfully filed each whom Circuit’s at 363. Under Second Id. seeking and was previously § 2255 motion view, such a denial would raise “serious § 2241 pro- in a review more collateral rendering questions,” constitutional armed career claimed the ceeding. One allowing and “inadequate or ineffective” improperly applied act had been criminal § 2241. recourse to due claimed he was to him and the other impli- with the broad Perhaps concerned decision, had Bailey which relief under the rule, the Second Circuit cations of its § 2255 motion had been come out after his holding that “does Triestman stated Both of them at 607. denied. See id. not, course, corpus is that habeas mean suc- filing a second or barred from were prisoner a federal whenever preserved AEDPA re- by § the cessive procedural barrier faces substantive id. at 607- remedy. that See strictions If it did § relief.” Id. 376. issue So, right to the the Court went OS. conceded, that, “then Con- the Court mean clause, it the of whether accomplished nothing would have gress hatch,” permitted “escape called like attempts through statutes in its all — circum- petition § 2241 those filing of a limits on federal place AEDPA —to reas- stances. Id. The Court collateral review.” recognized preme Circuit at the changed Seventh Court decision has the law clause

outset what could not a circuit retroactively way such a that Addressing argument mean. prisoner stands convicted for a nonexis- § 2241 remedy is available whenever the offense, prisoner tent and the had no rea- AEDPA restrictions on second or succes- opportunity judicial sonable for a motion, sive motions bar a of that fundamental filing defect before right; Court “That can’t it said: be would proceeding. See id. at 611. With nullify the limitations.” Id. 608. As virtually all Bailey is a rare ex- claims— right, what is the Seventh Circuit ception petitioner will have had “an —a premise started with the that the essential procedural unobstructed getting shot at corpus function of to give habeas is a his sentence vacated.” Id. at 609. That prisoner opportunity “a reasonable to ob- shot, does not mean he took the or even judicial tain a reliable determination of that he or attorney recognized his the shot legality fundamental of his conviction and taking. was there for the All the Constitu- sentence.” Id. at A op- 609. reasonable requires, much, tion if it requires that is portunity appeal to raise an issue on inor procedural that opportunity have exist- motion, a first or within the AED- ed. PA restrictions in a second is enough to serve that essential function We think the Seventh Circuit’s Constitution, satisfy the Court ex- Davenport approach is better reasoned plained. petitioner See id. at 609. The circuits, than those of the other and its pursue who was attempting the armed advantage rule has the of being specific. career op- offender innocence claim had adopt We comports insofar as it with the portunities to do so in appeal his direct following holding: The savings clause of his 2255 motion. See id. at 609- 1) applies to a claim when: Accordingly, claim did not fit claim upon is based a retroactively applica clause, within the savings and he was not 2) Supreme decision; ble the hold permitted access to the 2241 habeas ing Supreme of that Court decision estab remedy. petitioner lishes the was convicted for a The Seventh Circuit concluded that the offense; and, 3) nonexistent circuit law claim, Bailey put which was forward squarely foreclosed such a claim at the petitioner, the other was a different mat- time it otherwise should have been raised ter. It prece- reasoned settled circuit trial, petitioner’s in the appeal, or first dent going opposite way Bailey § 2255 motion.3 effectively issue had deprived petition- The Seventh Circuit in Davenport sug- er opportunity reasonable to obtain gested in dicta that the savings clause judicial a reliable determination of it. See might apply to some involving id. at claims permitted 610-11. The Court “fundamental Bailey defect” in pursued sentencing claim to be in a where petitioner proceeding, adopted opportunity but the rule it not had an judicial was a narrow one. The to obtain holding Daven- correction of that defect port, against case, read the facts of that earlier. See 147 F.3d at 611. We need limited to circumstances in which a Su- decide whether the clause ex- applies Once the clause procedurally of 2255 Bailey who had defaulted a open portal proceeding, to a raising appeal claim not required it on proper inquiry proceeding in that will prove obtaining actual innocence before petitioner be whether the can establish actual relief on that claim. It would make no sense innocence of the crime for which he has been petitioner for a who had defaulted on a claim convicted, as "actual innocence” is defined in (on appeal twice previous direct and in an States, Bousley v. United 523 U.S. proceeding) § 2255 to be better off than one S.Ct. Supreme 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (on only who had defaulted the claim once Bousley Court held in a even in appeal). direct first proceeding, petitioner collateral attack a I motion. That’s all circum- successive in those sentencing claims tends case, defect” and I therefore stances, “fundamental this or what a need decide hold, enough to be. It is might general attempt a sentence to formulate would do, sentencing claims only as we statutory language. rule to harmonize by the covered conceivably be may upon a based are those savings clause de- Supreme Court

retroactively applicable precedent. circuit overturning

cision this Case Application

D. convicted of was not

Wofford retroactively applicable Su

crime which overturning prior preme Court decision SANDERS, Margaret As Administratrix is nonex has made clear precedent circuit Sanders; L. the Estate of Darrell of sentencing his claims are All of istent. Margaret and Damon Sand- Sanders claims, upon a circuit which rest none of ers, Plaintiffs-Appellees, applicable Su retroactively law-busting, pro decision. Wofford preme Court v. raise each of opportunity to cedural at trial or have it decided either claims and HOWZE, Individually and in His Hollis reasons, Wofford’s appeal. For these on Law, Capacity; Individu- Sam Official clause does not fit with effort Capacity, ally et His Official § 2241 attempting to use §of 2255.' He is Defendants-Appellants. al., second escape the simply to restrictions All four of § 2255 motions. or successive No. 98-8512. opinion ventured an circuits that have Appeals, United States Court meaning recently on Eleventh Circuit. to free a that it does not exist agree

clause of his failure to prisoner of the effects 14, 1999. June Vial, earlier. See an available claim raise Dorsainvil, 5; at 1194 n. 115 F.3d 376; Triestman, 251; F.3d

F.3d at do we. 147 F.3d at 609. So

Davenport,

III. CONCLUSION un- relief petition

The denial is AFFIRMED. 28 U.S.C. 2241

der

COX, specially Judge, Circuit

concurring: heroically formu- opinion majority § 2255’s rule to harmonize general

lates a “savings hurdles

procedural bold, however, I hesitate to be

clause.” so intent congressional

when the evidence have here. sparse as what we

is as challenges to his that Wofford’s agree

I § 2241. under cognizable are not

sentence remedy by motion agree

I also “inadequate rendered 2255 is not

under pro- an individual is because

or ineffective” filing a second or from

cedurally barred notes in the sen- attacks adjudicating collateral that 2255 “has Title 28 state sug- in the Nothing report tencing court. clause, of the then of the Judicial Conference approval it savings as gests [, principal provi- existed, its] differ- anything to do with United States had of, in H.R. applica- incorporated are Sev- scope or defenses sions in the ences to, compared H.R.Rep. No. enty-ninth Congress.” motion ble 2255). (Recall (Reviser’s passed S. remedy. The Senate note at A180 habeas no action Congress the House took 79th when H.R. 4233 of the was but died Randall, n. 71 supra, clearly at 1106 containing language it. bill See Record). (citing Congressional clause was aimed showing that the problems” such as solely “practicable Meanwhile, for- moving was Congress Thus, hearing.) to the getting the movant comprehen- with a another front ward on note, well as the House the reviser’s Code, 28, the of Title Judicial sive revision bill Report comprehensive that the stating chapter. That corpus the habeas including pending legislation approved conformed to was of the Judicial Code embodied revision Conference, suggest by the Judicial reform pending in H.R. 8214. in the change lan- some extent bill, incorporat- S. been clause was intend- guage bill, but comprehensive revision into ed meaning. Those change previous ed difference was One with differences. however, weak, pretty indications are as fol- clause was reworded contrary ones. there are lows: cor- a writ of habeas An contrary indication is The most obvious prisoner is au- behalf of who pus in in- encompassing language, the new apply for relief thorized to remedy is the motion “inade- stances when

Case Details

Case Name: Wofford v. Scott

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Jun 14, 1999

Citation: 177 F.3d 1236

Docket Number: 98-8297

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.