United States v. Givens
2:12-cr-00259
| E.D. La. | Oct 5, 2021Background
- Givens pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiracies to distribute heroin and crack; initially sentenced to 57 months plus supervised release.
- After a sentence reduction, Givens was released in early 2016 but was later arrested for supervised-release violations (positive drug tests, firearm possession, failure to report/appear).
- He pled guilty to firearm charges and stipulted to supervised-release violations; the court revoked release and imposed consecutive statutory-maximum revocation terms, producing an aggregate 84-month sentence.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence on direct appeal and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in May 2019; Givens filed a § 2255 motion alleged to be timely under the prison-mailbox rule but tendered for filing December 21, 2020.
- The government disputed the motion’s timeliness and noted absence of legal-mail stamps; the plea agreement contained a broad waiver of collateral challenges (with an ineffective-assistance carve‑out not invoked here).
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion as barred by the plea waiver (and declined to resolve timeliness definitively), and refused a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 filing (prison‑mailbox rule) | Givens says he mailed motion on April 28, 2020 (within one‑year period). | Government says no proof of mailing via prison legal-mail system; burden on inmate to prove tendering. | Court found Givens failed to carry burden on timeliness but did not definitively rule because motion was otherwise barred. |
| Applicability of prison legal‑mail procedures | Givens relies on mailbox rule for pro se prisoners. | Government argues established prison legal-mail system requires use to invoke mailbox rule. | Court noted precedent requiring use of legal-mail systems but avoided definitive ruling here. |
| Enforceability of plea‑agreement collateral‑attack waiver | Givens seeks collateral relief under § 2255. | Government relies on Givens’ signed waiver of § 2255 and collateral challenges; no ineffective‑assistance claim to invalidate waiver. | Waiver bars Givens’ § 2255 motion; court denied relief on that procedural ground. |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Givens implicitly seeks permission to appeal denial. | Government opposes; says no substantial showing of constitutional denial. | COA denied because Givens did not make a substantial showing of a constitutional right. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (§ 2255 reserved for constitutional transgressions and narrow collateral defects)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (nonconstitutional errors are not cognizable on collateral attack unless fundamental)
- United States v. Walker, 68 F.3d 931 (5th Cir. 1995) (no evidentiary hearing required when record conclusively refutes claim)
- Wright v. United States, 624 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1980) (burden on habeas petitioner to prove claims by preponderance)
- United States v. Duran, 934 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2019) (prisoner bears burden to show when pleading was tendered to prison officials)
- United States v. Crain, 877 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017) (enforcement of collateral‑attack waivers in plea agreements)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (COA standards and encouragement to proceed)