Fernandez v. United States · ¶34

Indeed, Fernandez candidly admits that avoiding § 2255's procedural and substantive requirements is the benefit of his approach. As for procedure: Fernandez asserted at oral argument that “there are harsh limitations associated with [§ ]2255, and Congress has stated . . . that those limitations are appropriate, but it doesn't mean that in every case, as applied to every defendant, that those limitations are fair.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 18–19. According to Fernandez, the ability to bring a merits-based challenge under § 3582 mitigates “[t]he error and the unfairness of [the prisoner's] not having been able to bring it under [§ ]2255.” Id., at 19. His take on substance is similar. He offers the example of a prisoner who claims that prosecutors withheld mitigating evidence and that his lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to pursue that evidence. Fernandez posits that these…

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