The law regarding a motion attacking sentence of a federal court is set forth in 28 USC § 2255.
(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
(b) Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
(c) A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.
(d) An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.
(e) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(g) Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act, in all proceedings brought under this section, and any subsequent proceedings on review, the court may appoint counsel, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under this section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
(h) A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
Idaho Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Modify or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is a legal recourse available to individuals who wish to challenge or amend their sentences in federal cases within the state of Idaho. This motion provides a mechanism through which individuals can seek relief from the court by asserting various claims related to their sentence. It is important to note that there are distinct types of Idaho Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Modify or Correct a Sentence that individuals can pursue, each with their specific requirements and legal grounds. One type of motion that can be filed is based on violations of constitutional rights or errors made during the trial or sentencing process. For instance, if an individual believes that their sentence was improperly enhanced or that the court relied on incorrect information during sentencing, they may file a motion under Section 2255 of the United States Code. This allows them to assert claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, or violation of their Miranda rights. Another type of motion is the Idaho Rule 35 motion, which provides an avenue for individuals to seek a reduction in their sentence based on certain criteria. To file a Rule 35 motion, a petitioner must meet specific eligibility requirements, such as providing substantial assistance to the government's investigation, being a first-time offender, or demonstrating extraordinary rehabilitation efforts. This motion is typically filed within a limited timeframe after sentencing and is subject to the discretion of the court. Additionally, under the Idaho Code Rule 33, individuals in federal custody may file a motion to modify their sentences based on changed circumstances or new evidence that may have a significant impact on their case. This type of motion allows for the consideration of factors such as newly discovered evidence, a change in the law that affects the sentencing guidelines, or a change in the petitioner's personal circumstances that warrants a sentence reduction. When filing any of these motions, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the federal and state laws that govern the specific type of motion being pursued. Consulting with an experienced attorney who specializes in federal criminal law is highly recommended ensuring that the motion is properly drafted and submitted within the designated time limits. Ultimately, the success of the motion will depend on the merits of the petitioner's claims and the court's interpretation of the applicable laws and circumstances.
