Fernandez v. United States · ¶35

It is easy to see why Fernandez would prefer this construction. Section 3582—in sharp contrast to § 2255—imposes no time limit or numerical cap on motions. Nor is there any bar to raising issues waived or already decided on direct appeal. So a prisoner proceeding under § 3582 could challenge the validity of his conviction repeatedly, for years after it became final, even if the issue had already been raised or decided in prior proceedings. This system would enable prisoners not only to bypass § 2255, but also to override it. Consider this very case: Fernandez lost an argument on direct review and under § 2255, but then repackaged it in a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and obtained release from prison on those twice-rejected grounds.

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