UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ ALLEN R. WALKER, │ Petitioner-Appellant, │ > No. 23-5265 │ v. │ │ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Respondent-Appellee. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. Nos. 3:12-cr-00076-1; 3:17-cv-01180—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge.

Argued: July 24, 2024

Decided and Filed: April 11, 2025

Before: MOORE, MURPHY, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Zachary Tyree, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew C. Noll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Zachary Tyree, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew C. Noll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Robert E. McGuire, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

BLOOMEKATZ, delivered the opinion of the court in which MOORE, J., concurred. MURPHY, J. (pp 15–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. No. 23-5265 Walker v. United States Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Allen Walker filed a motion seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government opposed his motion but did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense. The district court, however, denied the motion as untimely. Walker appealed, and we remanded so the district court could determine whether the government’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense amounted to forfeiture or waiver. We cautioned that the district court could not resurrect a waived limitations defense but could potentially consider a forfeited one. On remand, the district court decided that the government forfeited the defense, considered it despite the forfeiture, and again denied Walker’s motion as time-barred.

Walker now appeals that forfeiture determination, arguing that because the government waived the statute of limitations defense, the district court should not have considered it. We agree. We reverse and remand so the district court can proceed to the merits of Walker’s § 2255 motion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Allen Walker pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute and dispense controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court sentenced him to 96 months in prison on August 20, 2015. Walker did not appeal, so the judgment became final on September 3, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). On that date, the one-year statute of limitations for habeas relief began to run. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). That meant Walker had until September 3, 2016, to file a § 2255 motion.

In August 2016, with the deadline less than a month away, Walker sent the district court a letter asking for more time to file his § 2255 motion and for appointment of counsel to help him prepare it. In his letter, Walker explained that he planned to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because