Whether the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) for filing a federal habeas petition commenced when the state trial court denied relief or when the state appellate proceedings concluded

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. King entered a guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a) based on his attorney’s advice that the conviction would not require him to register as a sex offender under Oregon state law. Contrary to his attorney’s advice, Mr. King’s federal probation officer later advised him that he had to register under state law. Defense counsel sought declaratory relief in state court contesting the registration requirement, then appealed the denial of relief to the state court of appeals and the state supreme court, all without success. Within one year of the appellate affirmance, Mr. King filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment due his attorney’s incorrect advice regarding registration. The federal district court dismissed the motion as untimely, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling that the oneyear statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) ran from the date when the state trial court denied relief, not when the state appellate proceedings concluded. The questions presented are: Should the Court grant a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand this case for the Ninth Circuit to consider this Court’s intervening decision in Reed v. Goertz, 143 S. Ct. 955 (2023), which held that the federal statute of limitations for filing a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not run until potentially dispositive state litigation is final? In the alternative, under the reasoning of Reed v. Goertz, 143 S. Ct. 955 (2023), does the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) commence only when state court proceedings resolving a question of state law necessary to the defendant’s federal constitutional claim have been finally resolved on appeal?