United States v. Montes
570 F. App'x 830
10th Cir.2014Background
- Vincente Montes pleaded guilty in 2009 to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)) and was sentenced to 188 months; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Montes’s conviction became final in January 2011 when the time to petition for certiorari expired.
- He filed a § 2255 habeas motion on December 2, 2013 — outside the general one-year limitations period of § 2255(f)(1).
- Montes argued his petition was timely under § 2255(f)(3) because Descamps v. United States (issued June 2013) supposedly announced a new, retroactive rule restarting the limitations clock.
- The district court rejected that timeliness argument; Montes raised additional grounds (Moncrieffe and the § 2255(e) savings clause) for the first time on appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, holding Descamps did not announce a new right and Montes forfeited arguments not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Descamps created a newly recognized, retroactive right under § 2255(f)(3) restarting the one-year clock | Montes: Descamps announced a new rule that restarts the limitations period | Government/District Court: Descamps applied existing categorical-approach doctrine and did not announce a new right | Court: Descamps did not recognize a new right; § 2255(f)(3) inapplicable; motion untimely |
| Whether Montes may rely on Moncrieffe or the § 2255(e) savings clause after failing to raise them below | Montes: These authorities could make his petition timely or permit relief | Government: Issues were not presented to district court and thus forfeited | Court: Arguments forfeited for failure to raise in district court; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (applied existing categorical-approach doctrine; did not announce new rule)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (standard for when a case announces a new rule for habeas purposes)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) (finality of conviction for appellate review timing)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- United States v. Gould, 672 F.3d 930 (10th Cir. 2012) (failure to raise an argument in district court yields forfeiture)
- United States v. Montes, [citation="400 F. App'x 390"] (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming Montes’s conviction and sentence)