United States v. Center
707 F. App'x 573
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- Willis Center (passenger) convicted after car search uncovered methamphetamine and cash; he later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking vacatur of his sentence.
- Original § 2255 claim argued sentencing enhancement under a guideline provision was unconstitutionally vague.
- Center moved for leave to amend to add claims challenging the constitutionality of the car search and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- District court denied relief on the original vagueness claim and denied leave to amend as the proposed claims were untimely under § 2255(f).
- Center sought a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; the court denied the certificate but granted in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing-guideline vagueness claim is cognizable | Center: guideline provision unconstitutionally vague, invalidating enhancement | Government: guidelines not subject to void-for-vagueness challenge after precedent | Denied — Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to guidelines |
| Whether district court erred in denying leave to amend to add Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance claims | Center: new claims should be allowed despite delay | Government: proposed claims are time-barred under § 2255(f) | Denied — claims untimely; no equitable tolling shown |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses late filing of proposed claims | Center: obstructive prison/counsel conduct prevented timely filing | Government: no extraordinary external impediment shown | Denied — petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether certificate of appealability should issue and whether in forma pauperis should be granted | Center: appeal raises debatable issues; cannot prepay fee | Government: issues are not reasonably debatable; fee applies absent COA | COA denied (no reasonable debate); in forma pauperis granted (indigent and in good faith) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to void-for-vagueness challenge)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling is rare; requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires impediments beyond claimant's control)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (discussing equitable tolling principles)
- Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2006) (obligation to pay filing fee remains after COA denial)
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 2008) (granting IFP despite denial of COA)
- Moore v. Pemberton, 110 F.3d 22 (7th Cir. 1997) (good-faith IFP standard is lower than COA standard)