Bowe v. United States · ¶164

This argument fails for much the same reason as its predecessor. If the absence of the word “motion” in § 2244 made all the difference, then none of §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) through (D)'s rules would apply to federal prisoners because each of those provisions speaks only of “applications.” Yet, no one believes that. Instead, everyone appreciates, § 2255 routes federal prisoners' “motions” through all those provisions. In each, then, the word “applications” is best read as interchangeable with “motions,” just as most circuits have understood. Cf. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U. S. 320, 324, n. 1 (2010) (“Although 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) refers to a habeas `application,' we use the word `petition' interchangeably”).

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