Whether the Tenth Circuit's decision departs so vastly from the accepted course of judicial proceedings—by forcing a litigant to challenge a decision before that decision is made—that it warrants the exercise of this Court's supervisory power

Questions Presented The issue here is one of timing. Mr. Friedman is trying to challenge a sentence imposed by the United States Parole Commission (the Commission) for a parole violation. The Commission imposed this sentence on October 14, 2018. Mr. Friedman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging this sentence on November 14, 2018. Generally, a § 2255 litigant must file his motion within one-year from “the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered.” Here, the facts supporting Mr. Friedman’s claim were contained in the Commission’s sentence imposed on October 14, 2018. Mr. Friedman’s petition should have been deemed timely. The Tenth Circuit, however, held that Mr. Friedman’s § 2255 motion was untimely. Judge Briscoe, writing for the court, held that Mr. Friedman had to file a § 2255 petition in 2014 attacking the Commission’s 2018 decision. In other words, the Tenth Circuit held that Mr. Friedman had to attack the Commission’s decision four years before that decision was ever made. Thus, the issues for this Court are as follows: A. Whether the Tenth Circuit’s decision departs so vastly from the accepted course of judicial proceedings—by forcing a litigant to challenge a decision before that decision is made—that it warrants the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. B. Whether the Tenth Circuit decision squarely conflicts with this Court’s precedent such that it warrants this Court’s intervention. C. In the alternative, whether the Tenth Circuit’s misapplication of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) warrants summary reversal. ii