Bowe v. United States · ¶163

Second, and in a similar vein, Mr. Bowe stresses that subsection (b)(1) prohibits do-over claims “in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254.” (Emphasis added.) Seeking to capitalize on the italicized language, Mr. Bowe notes that § 2254 governs postconviction “applications” by state prisoners, while federal prisoners proceed by way of § 2255 “motions.” Given that difference in nomenclature, Mr. Bowe contends, subsection (b)(1) must apply only to state prisoners because that provision addresses “applications” and not “motions.” The majority briefy nods in the same direction. See ante, at 36.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.