Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 7 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

528

CLAY v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

of finality for collateral review purposes would ordinarily determine the meaning of "becomes final" in 2255.

Amicus urges a different determinant, relying on verbal differences between 2255 and a parallel statutory provision, 28 U. S. C. 2244(d)(1), which governs petitions for federal habeas corpus by state prisoners. See DeBruin Brief 8-20. Sections 2255 and 2244(d)(1), as now formulated, were re-shaped by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See 101, 105, 110 Stat. 1217, 1220. Prior to that Act, no statute of limitations governed requests for federal habeas corpus or 2255 habeas-like relief. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986); United States v. Nahodil, 36 F. 3d 323, 328 (CA3 1994). Like 2255, 2244(d)(1) establishes a one-year limitation period, running from the latest of four specified dates. Three of the four time triggers under 2244(d)(1) closely track corresponding portions of 2255. Compare 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) with 2255, ¶¶ 6(2)-(4). But where 2255, ¶ 6(1), refers simply to "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final," 2244(d)(1)(A) speaks of "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." 3

When "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," we have recognized, "it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Russello v. United States, 464 U. S.

3 The Courts of Appeals have uniformly interpreted "direct review" in 2244(d)(1)(A) to encompass review of a state conviction by this Court. See Derman v. United States, 298 F. 3d, at 40-41; Williams v. Artuz, 237 F. 3d 147, 151 (CA2 2001); Kapral v. United States, 166 F. 3d, at 575; Hill v. Braxton, 277 F. 3d 701, 704 (CA4 2002); Ott v. Johnson, 192 F. 3d 510, 513 (CA5 1999); Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F. 3d 280, 283 (CA6 2000); Anderson v. Litscher, 281 F. 3d 672, 674-675 (CA7 2002); Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F. 3d 345, 347-348 (CA8 1998); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F. 3d 1157, 1159 (CA9 1999); Locke v. Saffle, 237 F. 3d 1269, 1273 (CA10 2001); Bond v. Moore, 309 F. 3d 770, 774 (CA11 2002).

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007