United States v. Hoon
762 F.3d 1172
10th Cir.2014Background
- Kenneth Hoon was convicted on federal drug charges and sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment; his direct appeal failed and his conviction became final in March 2008.
- Hoon filed a § 2255 motion in 2014 challenging his sentence; the district court denied it as untimely under the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
- Hoon argued the limitations period was restarted by Alleyne v. United States, which announced a new constitutional rule that any fact increasing a mandatory minimum must be found by a jury.
- § 2255(f)(3) can extend the limitations period when a new constitutional rule is made retroactively applicable on collateral review; Hoon relied on that provision.
- The district court held § 2255(f)(3) did not apply because no court had held Alleyne retroactive on collateral review; the Tenth Circuit declined a certificate of appealability and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoon’s § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255(f)(3) based on Alleyne | Alleyne announced a new constitutional rule and thus restarts the § 2255 limitations period as a retroactive rule | § 2255(f)(3) requires that the new rule be held retroactive on collateral review, and Alleyne has not been treated as retroactive by any court | Denied — § 2255(f)(3) does not apply because Alleyne has not been held retroactive on collateral review, so the motion is untimely |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Reasonable jurists could debate timeliness given Alleyne | No reasonable jurist could find the district court’s timeliness ruling debatable because § 2255(f)(3) requires retroactivity and none exists for Alleyne | Denied — COA not issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase a mandatory minimum are elements for the jury to decide)
- In re Payne, 733 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing retroactivity requirement in contexts involving new constitutional rules)
- United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2000) (conviction is final 90 days after termination of direct appeal)
- Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussion on whether § 2255(f)(3) requires Supreme Court retroactivity determination)