United States v. Sandoval-Pallares
8:15-cr-00353
M.D. Fla.Apr 19, 2017Background
- Euclides Barrios-Marsiglia pleaded guilty on December 8, 2015 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine aboard a vessel (46 U.S.C. §§ 70506; 21 U.S.C. § 960).
- The district court sentenced him on March 15, 2016 to 97 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’ supervised release.
- Barrios-Marsiglia did not file a direct appeal. The 14-day appeal window expired March 29, 2016.
- He executed a § 2255 motion on April 7, 2017 (motion also bears April 13, 2017), which is treated as filed on the signing date.
- The court determined the one-year AEDPA limitations period expired March 29, 2017, rendering the April 2017 § 2255 filing untimely.
- The court dismissed the § 2255 motion, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2255 motion was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) | Barrios-Marsiglia filed in April 2017 (claims implicitly timely) | Conviction became final Mar 29, 2016; one-year limitations expired Mar 29, 2017, before April 2017 filing | Motion untimely; dismissed |
| Whether equitable tolling or other § 2255(f) exceptions apply | (No specific tolling claimed in opinion) | No valid statutory or equitable basis shown to extend the limitations period | No tolling; timeliness not established |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue | COA requested to appeal denial | Petitioner failed to make substantial showing of constitutional denial | COA denied |
| Whether appeal in forma pauperis should be allowed | Requested if COA granted | Without COA, no right to appeal IFP | IFP denied (no COA) |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (prisoner’s § 2255 motion is filed on the date delivered to prison authorities for mailing)
- Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (conviction becomes final for § 2255(f)(1) when time to appeal expires if no appeal is filed)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) (COA requires showing reasonable jurists could debate district court’s assessment)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for when a COA should issue)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA issues only if the applicant made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (discusses standards for appellate review and merits of appeals)