Page:Jones v. Hendrix.pdf/61

Rh “finality”—and seems to draw a line between AEDPA’s statute of limitations, which does get clear-statement treatment, and its provisions governing successive petitions. This is nonsense. Both AEDPA provisions use similar language. §2255(f) (“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section”); §2255(h) (“A second or successive motion must … contain …”). And both procedural limitations relate to Congress’s interest in finality. ; Wood v. Milyard, 566 U. S. 463, 472 (2012) (noting that AEDPA’s statute of limitations “lends finality to … court judgments within a reasonable time” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)).

Next, the majority conspicuously downplays the stakes in this case. Not once does its opinion make direct mention of the fact that the claim the majority says §2255(h) silently precludes is one that implicates core values because it involves legal innocence. Instead, the majority repeatedly describes Jones’s bid for access to the postconviction review process as bringing a mere “statutory” claim. ,, , . But statutory claims that suggest a person’s innocence are different in kind from more run-of-the-mill statutory claims, such as a technical, nonprejudicial violation of a criminal procedure rule. See United States v. Addonizio,