Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Tenth Circuits also have concluded that a § 2255 motion filed after the reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal is not second or successive. See Shepeck v. United States, 150 F.3d 800, 801 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (concluding that an order granting a § 2255 motion and reimposing sentence because counsel failed to file a direct appeal “resets to zero the counter of collateral attacks pursued”); United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (“[Bjecause of the unique situation presented when the granting of the prior [§ 2255] motion merely reinstated the right to a direct appeal, the first subsequent motion is not a second or successive motion under AEDPA.”); see also Vasquez v. Parrott, 318 F.3d 387 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The opposite conclusion has been reached by
holding that such claims required prisoner to obtain prefiling authorization to file second or successive habeas petition holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding habeas petition was not second or successive where first petition did not attack conviction but alleged due process violation due to delay in adjudication of direct appeal in state court