United States Ninth Circuit

In this consolidated appeal, the district court's denial of defendant Reves' and Bedford's motions to vacate their sentences is: 1) affirmed as to Reves, where his motion was untimely, he does not qualify for actual innocence or equitable tolling exceptions, and he expressly waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence through a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion in his plea agreement and during his change of plea colloquy; and 2) reversed as to Bedford, and remanded with directions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction, where the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Bedford's section 2255 motion because he was not in custody at the time he filed his motion, as required by the statute.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/15/2014
• Published 12/15/2014

Judges

• Albritton

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel