Tag Archives: FRCivP 60

Supreme Court’s Final Days Include Criminal Decisions – Update for June 20, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIG CRIMINAL DECISIONS STILL PENDING WITH ONLY TWO WEEKS OF SCOTUS TERM LEFT

The Supreme Court held two opinion days last week, but the most-watched criminal cases – United States v. Taylor, Concepcion v. United States and Ruan v. United States – remain among the 18 opinions yet to be issued before the Court’s term ends on June 30.

scotus161130Most people expect the two “big” cases, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (a 2nd Amendment case) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the possibly-leaked abortion decision) to happen on the last day. But Taylor, which concerns whether an attempted offense that would be a “crime of violence” for application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – the mandatory consecutive sentence for using a gun – is a “crime of violence” if it is only attempted but not completed – has been hanging around for six months since its December argument. Concepcion, which concerns proper resentencing considerations in First Step Section 404(b) resentencing, and Ruan, which considers physician liability under 21 USC 841(a), was argued in the Court’s February sitting.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that “the standard and ready explanation, of course, for why decisions in Taylor and Conception may be taking a long time is because the Justices are (perhaps deeply?) divided in these cases, and so we should expect multiple (and lengthy?) opinions. And, to add a bit of spicy speculation, I am inclined to guess that the delay is also partially a function of the Justices in these cases not being divided neatly along the “standard” ideological lines.”

rules201202The only case of interest to defendants last week was Kemp v. United States. In that case, petitioner Dexter Kemp filed a 28 USC 2255 motion in 2015. The District Court dismissed the motion as untimely, and Dix did not appeal. But three years later, he sought to reopen his 2255 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), rules which permit a court to reopen an otherwise final judgment if certain conditions are met. A 60(b)(1) motion has to allege that a mistake was made, and must be filed within a year, Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for any other just reason can be filed at any time, but is available only when the other grounds for relief specified in the Rule don’t apply.

Dex was right that the District Court had goofed on dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely. In a just world, his § 2255 should be reopened, and that would be that. But in the real world, it’s not that easy.

The Supreme Court held that a judge’s error of law is a “mistake” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), meaning that Dex’s motion fit under Rule 60(b)(1). Subject to the Rule’s one-year limitations period, Dex’s motion was late and had to be dismissed as untimely.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Any (spicy?) speculations about why SCOTUS has not yet decided Taylor or Conception, two little sentencing cases? (June 13, 2022)

Kemp v. United States, Case No. 21-5726, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2835 (June 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Going Back to the Well – Update for September 24, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PROCEDURAL BOOTSTRAPPING

well210924Back to the Well Once Too Often: Federal prisoners who lose their 28 USC § 2255 motions sometimes resort to filing motions to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), as a clever means of getting around seeking permission for a second or successive § 2255 under 28 USC § 2244. It seldom works.

A few fun facts: First, although a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 challenges a criminal conviction or sentence, the § 2255 proceeding itself is considered to be a civil action. That is how a movant even has the option to employ Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or any other Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for that matter. Second, Rule 60(b) – which governs motions to set aside the judgment – is usable after a final judgment is rendered, although that some time constraints and designated bases for invoking the Rule that are beyond today’s discussion. Third, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – known as the AEDPA – puts severe restrictions on prisoners bringing more than a single § 2255 motion without meeting some pretty high standards (a new retroactive rule of constitutional law or some killer new evidence) and getting advance approval from a United States Court of Appeals under 28 USC § 2244. These restrictions can run headlong into a Rule 60(b) motion.

Desmond Rouse and several co-defendants were convicted based on what they called “outdated, false, misleading, and inaccurate” forensic medical evidence, testimony that had since been recanted, and juror racism. Having failed to win their § 2255 motions, they filed a motion to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing that a “new rule” announced in Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado would now let them “investigate whether their convictions were based upon overt [juror] racism,” and the witness recantations showed they were actually innocent.

Last week, the 8th Circuit rejected the Rule 60(b) motion as a second-or-successive § 2255 motion.

aedpa210504The Circuit held that newly discovered evidence in support of a claim previously denied and a subsequent change in substantive law “fall squarely within the class of Rule 60(b) claims to which the Supreme Court applied § 2244(b) restrictions in Gonzalez v. Crosby back in 2005. The requirement in § 2244(b)(3) that courts of appeals first certify compliance with § 2244(b)(2) before a district court can accept a motion for second or successive relief applies to Rule 60(b)(6) motions that include second or successive claims. Our prior denial of authorization did not sanction Appellants’ repackaging of their claims in Rule 60(b)(6) motions to the district court. The motions are improper attempts to circumvent the procedural requirements of AEDPA.”

Back to the Well is Just Fine: In the 7th Circuit, however, a prisoner who filed reconsideration on denial of his First Step Act Section 404 motion chalked up a procedural win. Within the 14 days allowed for filing a notice of appeal after his district court denied him a sentence reduction, William Hible filed a motion asking the district judge to reconsider his denial. The judge denied the motion, and Bill filed his notice of appeal, again within 14 days of the denial. The government argued the notice was late, because a motion for reconsideration doesn’t stop the appeal deadline from running.

Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with Bill. The 7th observed that while the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lack any parallel to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, the Supreme Court “has held repeatedly that motions to reconsider in criminal cases extend the time for appeal. But under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, only Criminal Rules 35 and 36 offer any prospect of modification by the district judge. Rule 36 is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(5), a motion under Rule 35 does not affect the time for appeal.

 timewaits210924The government argued these rules govern sentence reduction proceedings, but the 7th disagreed. The Circuit said the First Step Act authorizes reduction of a sentence long after the time allowed by Rule 35. Thus, “the First Step Act’s authorization to reduce a prisoner’s sentence is external to Rule 35,” so the provision in Rule 4(b)(5) about the effect of Rule 35 motions does not apply here. A reconsideration motion in a 404 proceeding thus stops the running of the time to appeal, and Hible’s notice of appeal was timely.

Rouse v. United States, Case No. 20-2007, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27795 (8th Cir., September 16, 2021)

United States v. Hible, Case No. 20-1824, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27548 (7th Cir., September 14, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

5th Circuit Pummels § 2255 Petitioner in Pair of Cases – Update for October 30, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

5th CIRCUIT DEALS TWO SETBACKS TO 2255 PROCEDURE

The 5th Circuit handed down a pair of 2255 procedural decisions last week that complicate matters for inmates seeking post-conviction relief in that circuit.

siegfried181101Every inmate law library denizen knows that if the district court denies a 2255, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure let the defendant file a motion to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). It seems like a free bite of the apple: you get to reargue your position, and a timely-filed 59(e) stops the clock running on the appeal deadline.

But, it turns out, a 59(e) motion is not free of cost. Andre McDaniels found that out last week. After the district court denied his 2255, which was based on ineffectiveness of counsel, Andre filed a Rule 59(e) motion that argued the court had erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing. That motion also was denied. Andre got a certificate of appealability from the 5th Circuit, but the government complained the Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court’s 2005 Gonzalez v. Crosby decision held that Rule 60(b) motions filed in 2255 cases seeking “to add a new ground for relief” or “attack the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits” is a second-or-successive 2255 petition. A motion that merely targets a procedural defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings, however, remains a bona fide Rule 60 motion over which a district court has jurisdiction.

Circuit courts are applying Gonzalez to Rule 59 motions filed in 2255 the allegations that he had made in the 2255 motion, and complained the district court had erred in dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The 5th Circuit ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Andre’s substantive claims under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Because they attacked the district court’s previous ruling on the merits, they constituted a successive habeas application.

However, his claim that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing was not an attack on the decision on the merits, but rather on the proper procedure used by the district court in the 2255 proceeding. Andre was able to go forward on that issue.

In a separate decision, the 5th Circuit weighed in on a circuit split on the meaning of 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(D). That statute permits second-and-successive 2255 motions in some cases, including newly discovered evidence. The 5th Circuit held that to show there is newly-discovered evidence, a defendant must “establish that the affidavits were unavailable to trial counsel at the time of trial.” A number of other circuits hold only that the evidence must be “reliable evidence that was available but not presented at trial.”

grasp181101The Circuit ruled that movant Jamal Hancock failed to show his evidence was newly discovered, because “it was always within the reach of petitioner’s personal knowledge or reasonable investigation.” The Court admitted it had not previously “decided what affirmatively constitutes ‘new’ evidence,” but it has “explained what does not.” Jamal’s affidavits did not show the witness affidavits were unavailable to his attorney at the time of trial, and therefore the Court held that Jamal had offered no “new” evidence.

United States v. McDaniels, Case No. 16-20508 (5th Cir., Oct. 26, 2018)

United States v. Hancock, Case No. 16-20662 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small