United States v. Carlos Caro
683 F. App'x 232
4th Cir.2017Background
- Carlos David Caro filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds; district court denied relief.
- Caro sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that denial.
- Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Caro made a substantial showing of a constitutional violation to merit a COA.
- Court concluded Caro’s § 2255 motion was untimely under § 2255(f)(4): Caro knew (or through diligence could have discovered) the facts supporting his claim by February 2007, but he filed in January 2013.
- Court rejected equitable tolling: Caro did not show profound mental incapacity during the limitations period and did not show extraordinary impediment or diligence based on alleged ineffectiveness of capital counsel.
- Court denied a COA and dismissed the appeal; oral argument was dispensed with.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 2255(f)(4) | Caro argued his motion was timely under the discovery-based limitations provision | Government argued Caro knew the operative facts by Feb 2007 and filed only in Jan 2013 | Held: Motion untimely; limitations period began when facts were known or discoverable, not when legal significance was appreciated |
| Equitable tolling — mental incapacity | Caro argued mental-health diagnoses justify tolling | Government argued no evidence of profound incapacity during limitations period | Held: No tolling; Caro did not show institutionalization or adjudged incompetence |
| Equitable tolling — counsel ineffectiveness | Caro argued his capital counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented timely filing | Government argued record shows no counsel-caused impediment to filing here | Held: No tolling; Caro failed to show extraordinary circumstance or diligence |
| Certificate of Appealability | Caro sought COA to appeal district court’s merits decision | Government opposed, citing untimeliness and lack of debatable right | Held: COA denied because reasonable jurists would not find the timeliness and tolling conclusions debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard and when movant must show debatable assessment)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standards for COA review)
- United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 2015) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground apparent in the record)
- Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. en banc 2014) (equitable tolling applies to § 2255 limitations)
- Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2000) (limitations begin when prisoner knows or could discover the important facts)
- United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (mental-incapacity standard for tolling requires profound incapacity)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)