Ayyad v. United States, 1:25-cv-01766

Nidal Ayyad was convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, resulting in multiple felony convictions, six deaths, significant injuries, and major property damage.
Ayyad received an aggregate prison sentence of 1,405 months (approximately 117 years), involving both concurrent and consecutive terms for various counts, including two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
In 2016, Ayyad filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his convictions on certain counts. The court vacated his conviction on one count (Count 10) based on subsequent constitutional developments but denied all other relief.
Multiple amended judgments followed, but none substantively changed the facts relevant to Ayyad’s latest claim.
The current motion, filed in 2024, alleges for the first time that the original trial judge fell asleep during the defense's closing argument at the 1994 trial and that this distracted the jurors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of § 2255 Motion	Motion should be considered despite the passage of time	Motion is untimely under § 2255(f) as judgment was final decades ago	Motion is untimely; denied
Prejudice from Alleged Judge Inattention	Judge's alleged sleeping during closing argument deprived Ayyad of fair trial	Movant has not demonstrated legal prejudice; no rulings made during period of inattention	No sufficient basis for constitutional violation; motion fails
Applicability of Amended Judgments to Timeliness	Third amended judgment should reset limitation period	Changes were not material to present claim; did not reset period	Limitation period was not reset; motion remains untimely
New Grounds Raised in Successive Petitions	New ground justifies additional review	Issue was known to Ayyad for decades; cannot revive untimely claim	New ground does not excuse lateness

United States v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2001) (Affirmed sentence structure and discussed no legal right to sentence shorter than life expectancy)
United States v. McKeighan, 685 F.3d 956 (10th Cir. 2012) (Held that juror or judge attentiveness issues do not warrant new trial absent showing of prejudice)