United States v. Espinoza-Saenz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “claims [that are] totally separate and distinct, in both time and type from those raised in [the] original motion,” do not relate back to the date of the original motion (internal quotation marks omitted).
• noting the “intent of Congress that claims under § 2255 be advanced within one year after a judgment of conviction becomes final”
• “an untimely amendment to a § 2255 motion” relates back to the original filing date “only if . . . the proposed amendment does not seek to add a new claim or to insert a new theory into the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).