United States v. Saud, 4:21-cr-00041-RAJ-RJK

Yasir Qahtan Saud was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on charges related to child pornography, including receipt, distribution, and transportation.
Saud pleaded guilty to one count (receipt of child pornography) and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and 15 years supervised release; he did not appeal or file a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate.
Saud filed a pro se motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), alleging actual innocence and citing newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, affirmative defenses, and government misconduct.
The government opposed the motion as untimely and improper, arguing it fell under habeas relief requirements, not Rule 60(b).
The court reviewed the motion to determine whether it represented an impermissible successive collateral attack or a legitimate challenge to the collateral review process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion	Saud claims actual innocence justifies late filing	Motion is untimely under both Rule 60(b) & § 2255	Motion is untimely, relief denied
Proper characterization of the motion	Motion seeks relief from judgment via Rule 60(b)	Motion is collateral attack, should be § 2255 motion	Treated as § 2255, subject to its limits
Actual innocence as grounds for relief	Cites new evidence, ineffective counsel, misconduct	No new evidence, claim should have been timely raised	No extraordinary circumstances shown
Certificate of Appealability	Implied request for appellate review	Deny for lack of substantial constitutional grounds	Certificate of Appealability denied

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (test for habeas-equivalence of Rule 60(b) motions)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing certificate of appealability)