In light of these decisions, Nolan urges that he could not have filed his § 2255 petition before Henderson v. United States was decided. Only then, in his view, was it finally clear that a petitioner in his situation could not be penalized for any shortcomings in the district court’s treatment of his post-conviction filings. But Nolan is asking for too much: why stop with Henderson, for example? The Supreme Court did not endorse Henderson’s approach until December 15, 2003, when it issued its opinion in Castro. When Nolan and Henderson filed their Rule 33 motions in April 1997, the one-year grace period available to all prisoners whose proceedings had ended before the April 1996 effective date of AEDPA was about to expire. See Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 833 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Nolan chose then to file a Rule 33 motion,
holding that the drastic sanction of preclusion of expert witnesses was not warranted based on failure to furnish discovery by the discovery deadline when the deadline could have been shifted holding that 24 foreclosure was substantial under the facts of that case holding that the deadline under the grace period was april 24 1997 holding that the legal expenses attributable to the accrued lien and the grace period must be prorated between the employer and the claimant holding jones should be entitled to prosecute appeal on reasonably explaining need for extension to file perfecting instrument filed after deadline but within 15day grace period for filing motion to extend time to file perfecting instrument