The rule "can be used in cases where a defendant files a timely § 2255 motion and then later files an amendment or additional motion that relates back to the original § 2255, but would otherwise be untimely." United States v. Hames, 431 Fed. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011). For an untimely § 2255 claim to relate back under Rule 15(c), "the untimely claim must have more in common with the timely filed claim than the mere fact that they arose of the same trial and sentencing proceedings."

Supplementation of a previously adjudicated § 2255 petition is not permitted. See United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("[A] motion under § 2255 can only be amended under Rule 15 before judgment is issued; Rule 15 has no post-judgment application.") (citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2010)); Whiting v. United States, No. 97-2033, 1998 WL 1281294, at *2 n.1 (1st Cir. June 26, 1998) (unpublished table decision) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a post-adjudication motion to amend a § 2255 petition as a successive petition).

This argument is unavailing, as the Court entered judgment on Crews' original Section 2255 motion years before he sought to add additional claims in his Motion to Amend. United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011) ("[A] motion under § 2255 can only be amended under Rule 15 before judgment is issued; Rule 15 has no post-judgment application.") (citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2010)). Furthermore, Crews' supplemental Mathis claim does not satisfy Section 2255(h), as his claim does not arise from:

Dean v. United States, 278 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). See also Mabry v. United States, 336 Fed. Appx. 961, 962-63, 2009 WL 2038627, at *1 (11th Cir. July 15, 2009) (bold emphasis added); see also United States v. Hames, 431 Fed. Appx. 846, 847, 2011 WL 2471482, at *1 (11th Cir. June 22, 2011) ("An amendment 'relates back' to the date of the original pleading if it, 'asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out ... in the original pleading.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B)).

Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-45 (11th Cir.2010).United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011). On February 7, 2017, the Court denied Defendant's Section 2255 Motion and the Clerk of Court issued its judgment against Defendant. Defendant now requests to "withdraw and amend" his previously denied Section 2255 Motion. Defendant's request to amend is time barred and is required to be denied.

Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2010).United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished). Because judgment has been entered on Boone's first § 2255 motion, he cannot now amend it.

Therefore, the additional ground is untimely and barred from federal review unless the claim relates back to a claim raised in Brown's timely-filed § 2255 motion.See Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000) ("'Relation back' causes an otherwise untimely claim to be considered by treating it as if it had been filed when the timely claims were filed."); United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011) ("Rule 15 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] can be used in cases where a defendant files a timely § 2255 motion and then later files an amendment or additional motion that relates back to the original § 2255, but would otherwise be untimely." (citing Davenport, 217 F.3d at 1344)).

But "a motion under §2255 can only be amended under Rule 15 before judgment is issued; Rule 15 has no post-judgment application." United States v. Hames, 431 Fed.Appx. 846, 847, 2011 WL 2471482 (10th Cir. 2011). Defendant cannot amend his original §2255 motion after a final judgment was entered on it.

See Henderson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr's, 441 Fed.Appx. 629 (11th Cir. 2011)(unpublished)(citingJones v. United States, 304 F.3d 1035, 1043 n.16 (11th Cir. 2002)(finding a new petition cannot be considered an amendment to an earlier petition if the earlier petition has been denied and the case closed); see also, United States v. Hames, 431 Fed.Appx. 846 (11th Cir. 2011)(unpublished)(affirming dismissal of motion to amend, challenging court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed some ten years after final judgment entered on an original §2255 motion)(citingJacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2010); Burns v. United States, 152 Fed.Appx. 887 (11th Cir. 2005)(unpublished)(citingJones v. United States, supra.).

Moreover, Movant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 has "no post-judgment application" was incorrect. See, e.g., United States v. Hames, 431 F. App'x 846, 847 (11th Cir. 2011) ("Importantly, a motion under § 2255 can only be amended under Rule 15 before judgment is issued; Rule 15 has no post-judgment application."). Finally, Movant's challenge to the Magistrate Judge's decision that he was not diligent is irrelevant based on the persuasive authority in Bazemore, which held that equitable tolling under Stewart is not warranted despite diligence.