United States v. Harrison
680 F. App'x 678
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leslie Susan Harrison was convicted (2012) of conspiracy to manufacture/distribute ≥50g methamphetamine and initially sentenced to 360 months; this Court vacated and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Harrison, 743 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2014).
- On resentencing she received 136 months; this Court affirmed on direct appeal on January 30, 2015. She did not seek certiorari.
- Harrison filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on August 15, 2016, seeking relief based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely under § 2255(f)(1), concluding the one-year limitations period began on April 30, 2015 (90 days after the appellate mandate) and expired April 30, 2016.
- Harrison argued the limitations period should run from the date Amendment 794 took effect (November 1, 2015) under § 2255(f)(4), treating the amendment as a newly discoverable “fact.”
- The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA), holding reasonable jurists would not debate that the § 2255 motion was untimely, but granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrison's § 2255 motion was timely | Amendment 794 is a new "fact" discovered Nov. 1, 2015, so limitations runs from that date under § 2255(f)(4) | Final judgment date controls; limitations began Apr. 30, 2015 under § 2255(f)(1) because no certiorari was filed | Held untimely under § 2255(f)(1); Amendment 794 is not a "fact" under § 2255(f)(4) |
| Whether an amendment to the Guidelines can reset § 2255(f)(4) | Amendment constitutes a new factual predicate for relief | Changes in law or Guidelines are not "facts" for § 2255(f)(4) purposes | Held legal changes/clarifications (including Amendment 794) are not "facts"; § 2255(f)(4) inapplicable |
| Whether a COA should issue on the procedural timeliness ruling | Harrison argued timeliness is debatable because of § 2255(f)(4) claim | Circuit argued no reasonable jurist could debate correctness of dismissal as untimely | Denied COA; timeliness ruling not debatable |
| Whether to grant in forma pauperis on appeal | N/A (request accompanied the appeal) | Court reviewed affidavit and found indigence and nonfrivolous argument | Granted IFP |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez, 596 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.) (COA jurisdictional standard for § 2255 appeals)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standard for COA when district court decides on procedural grounds)
- United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.) (finality of judgment and start of § 2255 limitations when certiorari not sought)
- Barreto-Barreto v. United States, 551 F.3d 95 (1st Cir.) (changes in law are not "facts" under § 2255(f)(4))
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (U.S. 2005) (vacatur of prior conviction that enhanced sentence can be a "fact" under § 2255(f)(4))