Maria Hernandez v. United States, 888 F.3d 219

Maria Hernandez was convicted in 2004 of drug and money‑laundering conspiracy based largely on $125,000 mailed to “Maria Pena” at an address where Hernandez formerly lived but her sister‑in‑law (Maria Trinidad Pena Topete) lived after Hernandez moved out.
Hernandez’s trial counsel failed to investigate or present evidence about the other Maria; she was convicted and sentenced to 204 months.
Hernandez obtained relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: the district court vacated her conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel and ordered release pending retrial, finding a reasonable probability of acquittal if the jury had heard evidence distinguishing the other Maria.
The government moved to dismiss the indictment instead of retrying; the district court granted the motion, ending prosecution.
Hernandez sought a certificate under 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1) (required to pursue damages in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1495), arguing her conviction was set aside on the ground she was not guilty. The district court denied the certificate; Hernandez appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2513(a)(1) is satisfied when a conviction is vacated on ineffective‑assistance grounds and the indictment later dismissed	Hernandez: vacatur on habeas and dismissal amounted to being "set aside on the ground that [she] is not guilty" or that she would be acquitted on retrial, satisfying § 2513(a)(1)	Government/District Court: vacatur was procedural (ineffective assistance), not a finding of actual innocence; § 2513 requires the conviction be set aside on the ground of not guilty or a not‑guilty finding on retrial	Court affirmed: § 2513(a)(1) not met because vacatur was for procedural/Strickland ineffective‑assistance reasons, not a determination that Hernandez was not guilty; no certificate required

Osborn v. United States, 322 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1963) (vacatur for procedural defect not satisfying § 2513(a)(1))
United States v. Graham, 608 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2010) (denial of § 2513 certificate reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Racing Servs., Inc., 580 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of § 2513 certificate denial)
Betts v. United States, 10 F.3d 1278 (7th Cir. 1993) (treatment of § 2513 certificates)
Rigsbee v. United States, 204 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1953) (early treatment of certificate issuance)
Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing Strickland prejudice standard from acquittal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective‑assistance standard; focuses on fairness of trial rather than proof of innocence)