of justice. E. Statute of Limitations The government argues, regardless of the merits, that Duval’s petition is time-barred because it was not filed within a year of any of the relevant triggering events under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Petitioner argues that his claim is timely because he filed his claim within one year of the Holloway case. A one-year statute of limi by governmental action. Petitioner next argues that the Holloway decision changed the underlying character of his predicate assault conviction. This, he contends, is a new fact which was not previously available to him under § 2255(f)(4). However, the limitation provided for in § 2255(f)(4) requires newly discovered facts or evidence, not a change in the law. See Anou Lo v. Endicott, 506 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094,
holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act holding state supreme courts clarification of law does not constitute a factual predicate under  2244d1d holding that change in state substantive case law does not constitute the removal of an impediment holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor