Tony L. Pagador v. Trustmark National Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a judicial decision interpreting the law does not constitute a “new fact” for purposes of § 2255(f)(4)
• stating that because petitioner’s § 2255 was time-barred, the court would not reach whether his claims were “procedurally defaulted or analyze the claim on its merits”
• distinguishing between new facts and interpretations of law, concluding that the latter do not give rise to § 2255(f)(4) tolling
• “To be entitled to invoke the statute of limitations contained in section 2255(f)(4), we have said that a petitioner must show the existence of a new fact, while also demonstrating that he acted with diligence to discover the new fact.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).