Federal appellate and post-conviction proceedings offer critical opportunities to challenge convictions and sentences—but they are governed by strict procedural requirements and demanding legal standards.
A direct appeal challenges errors that occurred during trial or sentencing. In federal cases, direct appeals are heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Effective appellate advocacy in the Fifth Circuit requires a thorough understanding of federal criminal procedure, evidentiary rules, and the applicable standards of review.
Jeffrey D. Parker handles federal appeals with the same disciplined, record-driven approach that defines his practice.
For federal defendants who have exhausted their direct appeal rights, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may provide a path to relief. Section 2255 allows defendants to challenge their conviction or sentence on grounds including:
Section 2255 motions are subject to strict procedural requirements, including a one-year statute of limitations and limitations on successive petitions. Effective post-conviction representation requires careful attention to these procedural constraints.
If you've been convicted in federal court and believe something went wrong you should understand that there is a hard deadline attached to filing these motions, and missing it can permanently close the door on your ability to challenge your conviction.
Before 1996, a § 2255 motion could theoretically be filed at any time after conviction. Congress changed that with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 — commonly called AEDPA — which imposed a strict one-year statute of limitations. The clock starts running from the date of whichever of four specific "triggering events" applies to your situation.
For most people, the clock starts when their conviction becomes "final." But finality doesn't necessarily mean the day you were sentenced — it depends on what happened after sentencing. If you didn't appeal your conviction, finality typically occurs 14 days after judgment is entered, when your time to file a notice of appeal expires. If you did appeal and the Court of Appeals ruled against you, finality occurs 90 days later — when your window to petition the United States Supreme Court for review closes. If you actually filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, the clock doesn't start until the Court denies that petition or issues its decision.
The other three triggering events are narrower but critically important in the right circumstances. The one-year period can also begin when an illegal, government-created impediment to filing is removed. For example, if the government was actively preventing you from accessing legal materials or counsel. It can begin when the Supreme Court recognizes a new constitutional right and makes it retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. And it can begin when the facts supporting your claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Meaning, you didn't know, and couldn't reasonably have known, the basis for your claim until a later date.
The one-year deadline is strict, but it is not absolutely ironclad. In rare cases, courts will apply what is called "equitable tolling" — essentially pausing or extending the deadline — when a petitioner can show two things: first, that they were diligently pursuing their rights throughout the relevant period; and second, that some extraordinary circumstance outside their control stood in the way of timely filing. This is a high bar. Ignorance of the law, a busy or negligent attorney, or ordinary prison conditions generally don't qualify. Courts take these arguments seriously only when the circumstances are genuinely exceptional.
In very limited situations, when a § 2255 motion is deemed an inadequate or ineffective remedy, a prisoner may be permitted to seek relief through a traditional habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This provision — sometimes called the "saving clause" — is rarely invoked successfully. It typically requires a claim of actual innocence based on a subsequent change in how a criminal statute has been interpreted, not merely a constitutional argument. Courts treat it as a last resort, not an alternative route around § 2255's requirements.
The one-year deadline governs your first § 2255 motion. If you've already filed one and want to file a second, the rules become significantly more restrictive. You must first obtain authorization from the appropriate Court of Appeals, which will only be granted in two narrow circumstances: new evidence that would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found you guilty, or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court that was previously unavailable. Getting that authorization is difficult, and courts grant it sparingly.
All of this is to point out that federal post-conviction law is technical, deadline-driven, and largely unforgiving. A single missed date can eliminate rights that might otherwise be vindicated. If you believe your federal conviction or sentence is legally flawed, the most important thing you can do is seek experienced legal counsel immediately — before the clock runs out.
Deadlines matter. Contact the Law Office of Jeffrey D. Parker to evaluate your case.
(254)939-8373 Contact the Office →