Hipolito Alejandro Felix v. United States
709 F. App'x 543
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Felix pled guilty (2011) to attempting to induce a 15‑year‑old foster daughter to produce child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) pursuant to a written plea agreement; other counts were dismissed.
- Stipulated facts and the PSI detailed numerous sexually explicit texts and images Felix sent and received; the district court adopted the PSI and sentenced Felix to 180 months (low end of the guideline range).
- Felix filed post‑conviction and direct challenges: attempted plea withdrawal (denied), direct appeal (affirmed), and an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (denied in 2014).
- Felix filed multiple subsequent pro se filings challenging his conviction/sentence (including claims of coerced confession, invalid plea, lack of jurisdiction), which the district court (and magistrate) repeatedly construed as successive § 2255 motions and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- In June 2015 Felix filed the instant motion styled under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), arguing the indictment actually alleged repealed federal rape statutes and that the court lacked jurisdiction and exceeded Commerce Clause limits; the district court treated it as a successive § 2255 and denied for lack of jurisdiction.
- Felix timely appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing the filing was a successive § 2255 collateral attack and that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Felix had not obtained this Court’s prior authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 18, 2015 filing must be treated as a successive § 2255 motion | Felix labeled it as a § 3742(a)(1) motion for review of sentence, not a § 2255 motion | The filing attacks the validity of conviction/sentence and thus is a collateral attack properly cognizable under § 2255 | Court: It is a successive § 2255 motion despite the label; district court correctly construed it as such |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion absent appellate authorization | Felix argued the sentence was unlawful and the court had inherent jurisdiction to "review" and dissolve the sentence | Government/district court: Because it is a successive § 2255, Felix needed prior authorization from the Eleventh Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) | Court: District court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction and properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
| Whether § 3742(a)(1) (appeal statute) provided an alternate route for relief | Felix asserted § 3742(a)(1) review of an unlawful sentence | Government: § 3742(a)(1) governs direct appeals only and Felix already appealed in 2012 | Court: § 3742(a)(1) does not apply; direct‑appeal route was already exhausted |
| Whether Felix showed a basis to overcome successive‑motion bar (new evidence or new retroactive rule) | Felix raised jurisdictional/statutory and constitutional defects; argued manifest injustice/due process violations | Government: Claims could have been raised earlier and Felix offered no basis for the § 2255(h) exceptions | Court: Felix did not meet § 2255(h) criteria and offered no legitimate excuse for failing to raise claims earlier; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2014) (describing limits on successive § 2255 motions)
- United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive § 2255 not certified by the court of appeals)
- United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (courts must look behind pro se labels to substantive relief sought)
- McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of dismissal as second or successive § 2255)