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.
A Clark Nevada Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Modify, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is a legal procedure that provides individuals in federal custody an opportunity to challenge and potentially overturn their sentence. This motion is designed to address situations where a person believes their sentence was unjust, unfair, or based on errors made during the trial or sentencing process. There are a few different types of Clark Nevada Motions to Vacate, Set Aside, Modify, or Correct a Sentence that individuals in federal custody can utilize, depending on the specific circumstances of their case. Some of these include: 1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: This type of motion asserts that the defendant's legal representation during the trial was inadequate or failed to meet the constitutional standard. Examples may include situations where the defense attorney failed to provide proper legal advice, conducted a flawed investigation, or made significant errors during trial. 2. Newly Discovered Evidence: This motion is filed when new and previously unavailable evidence comes to light, which could potentially impact the outcome of the case. The evidence must be material and of such significance that it could have affected the jury's decision had it been presented during the trial. 3. Violation of Constitutional Rights: This type of motion alleges that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated during the trial or sentencing process. Common examples include violations of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure), Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination), or Sixth Amendment (right to counsel) rights. 4. Sentencing Errors: This motion challenges the legality or appropriateness of the imposed sentence. It may argue that the sentence was based on incorrect calculations, violated statutory guidelines, or imposed unconstitutional penalties. 5. Change in Law: Sometimes, changes in the law can occur after a defendant's conviction that may impact their legal situation. In such cases, a motion can be filed to seek relief based on the change in law, arguing that the conviction or sentence would be different under the new legal standards. It is important to note that filing a Clark Nevada Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Modify, or Correct a Sentence is a complex legal process that typically requires the assistance of an experienced attorney. The success of the motion depends on various factors such as the strength of the arguments presented, the availability of supporting evidence, and the specific circumstances of the case. Individuals in federal custody seeking to file such a motion should consult with a qualified legal professional to assess their options and determine the best course of action.
