Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, 678 F.3d 1203

Figuereo-Sanchez, Dominican Republic citizen, has lived in the U.S. since 1972 and was convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, receiving a 96-month sentence.
He is subject to deportation following his criminal conviction, with prior appellate history in the Third Circuit confirming deportation proceedings.
After his conviction, he filed a pro se motion in 2005 for transcripts to prepare a §2255 petition, which the district court denied without explanation.
In May 2006 he filed a supplement asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to discuss appeal rights and requested time to seek a Certificate of Appealability; the district court did not rule on it.
In July 2008 he, pro se, filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate and asserted ineffective assistance for trial counsel’s failure to appeal and that the guilty plea was not knowingly made; he also sought to treat transcripts as a §2255 petition.
The district court construed the 2008 Rule 60(b) motion as a §2255 petition and denied it as time-barred; two years later he filed another §2255 motion arguing Padilla-based ineffective assistance and seeking relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castro warnings were required for recharacterization as a §2255 petition	Figuereo-Sanchez contends Castro warnings were mandatory and absent, the recharacterization was invalid.	The district court could fairly read the Rule 60(b) motion as a recharacterization and thus was permitted without Castro warnings.	District court failed to issue Castro warnings; July 2010 §2255 motion cannot be treated as a second or successive petition.
Whether Padilla announced a retroactive, watershed rule impacting timeliness under §2255(f)(3)	Padilla created a new retroactively applicable right that should toll the time bar.	Padilla did not announce a watershed rule altering bedrock procedural elements, so it is not retroactive for §2255(f)(3).	Padilla did not announce a watershed rule; July 2010 petition is untimely.
Whether Padilla-related claims are timely despite retroactivity analysis	If Padilla is retroactive, §2255(f)(3) provides a new window to file.	Even assuming retroactivity, the rule is not watershed, so no new window applies.	Timeliness not satisfied under §2255(f)(3); petition untimely.

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (requires warning when recharacterizing pro se motions to §2255)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must inform of deportation risk; not a watershed rule)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (teague retroactivity framework for new rules on collateral review)
Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007) (defines bedrock procedural elements for watershed rules)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (watershed rule criteria for procedural reform)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (touchstone for right to counsel in criminal proceedings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance claims)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty pleas under certain contexts)
Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) (Teague considerations on reliability and retroactivity)
Howard v. United States, 374 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Circuit application of retroactivity and Castro framework)