Federal district court lacked jurisdiction to consider motion to vacate sentence where defendant’s probation term expired on a Sunday and he filed his motion the next day, because he was no longer “in custody.” Reves and defendant Bedford appealed the federal district court’s denial of their motions to vacate their sentences (28 U.S.C. § 2255). Their convictions stemmed from an FBI investigation into allegedly corrupt practices by San Joaquin County government officials related to contract awards. After full or partial reversals of the convictions of several of their codefendants, Reves and Bedford sought to have their convictions set aside. Held: Reversed with instructions to dismiss as to Bedford; affirmed as to Reves. Motions to vacate a sentence under § 2255 are only available to a “prisoner in custody.” The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Bedford’s motion because he was not in custody at the time his motion was filed—his probation terminated the day before his motion was filed, on a Sunday. Although Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C) extends time periods ending on a weekend or legal holiday to the next working day, jurisdiction under § 2255 is not governed by this rule. The “in custody” requirement is not a given time period in the same sense as a statute of limitations or other deadline for filing, and the rule does not operate to extend Bedford’s sentence one more day. Reves’s motion was likewise untimely based on the one-year statute of limitations and he did not qualify for the actual innocence or equitable tolling exceptions.