Alina Feas v. United States
701 F. App'x 768
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alina Feas pled guilty on May 7, 2013 and later filed a § 2255 motion challenging the Rule 11(b)(1)(A) plea colloquy (failure to warn that plea statements could be used in perjury prosecution).
- Feas’s first § 2255 motion was denied on the merits by the district court on August 12, 2014.
- After the first § 2255 denial, an AUSA allegedly threatened perjury prosecution on November 17, 2014; Feas contends this threat ripened her Rule 11 claim.
- Feas filed a later § 2255 motion asserting the Rule 11 error and prejudice (that she would not have pleaded guilty if properly warned).
- The district court dismissed the later motion as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 filing and also addressed AEDPA timeliness and lack of reasonable-probability prejudice.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the later motion was second or successive because the operative facts (the alleged Rule 11 defect) were available at the plea date, vacated the district court’s merits consideration, and instructed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the later § 2255 motion is "second or successive" under AEDPA | Feas: claim was not successive because it only ripened after a later threat of perjury prosecution (post-first § 2255 denial) | Govt: the Rule 11 defect occurred at plea date, so claim was available earlier and is successive without authorization | Motion is second or successive; district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it |
| Whether a perjury-threat arising after the first § 2255 makes the claim a "new fact" avoiding successive-label | Feas: new perjury threat created a new factual predicate, so claim was not previously available | Govt: later threat does not change that the actionable defect occurred at plea; claim was available at first filing | Later threat does not convert the claim into an unavailable/new-fact claim; claim remains successive |
| Whether failure-to-warn under Rule 11 is actionable without a threat of perjury prosecution | Feas: argued prejudice from not being warned and later threat supports prejudice | Govt: Pinto requires either a threat of perjury prosecution or other showing of prejudice; here the Rule 11 defect itself supplied potential prejudice | Court relied on Pinto but held the prejudice argument existed at plea date; because claim was available then, it is successive |
| Whether appellate review should reach merits of Rule 11 claim without COA | Feas: urged merits review | Govt: district court lacked jurisdiction; without authorization appellate review of merits inappropriate | Court declined to reach merits because it lacked jurisdiction over a successive § 2255 filing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1988) (Rule 11 failure-to-warn claim requires perjury-threat or other prejudice showing)
- McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of dismissal as second or successive)
- Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider unauthorized successive § 2255)
- Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011) (small subset of claims based on previously unavailable facts are not "second or successive")
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (interpretation of "second or successive" and unavailable claims)
- Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1998) (scope of appellate review in § 2255 limited to COA-specified issues)