United States v. Tabi
264 F. Supp. 3d 15
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In 1998 a jury convicted Albert Tabi of making false statements on a passport application; the district court sentenced him to three years' probation on October 1, 1998.
- Tabi initially filed a notice of appeal but the D.C. Circuit granted his motion to dismiss the appeal on March 25, 1999.
- Tabi filed a pro se motion titled "Motion to Re-Open Case" on April 11, 2006, which the court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
- The government responded that the § 2255 motion was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
- The court found Tabi’s conviction became final on March 25, 1999, so the limitations period expired March 25, 2000; Tabi did not invoke any § 2255(f)(2)-(4) exception or allege equitable tolling or actual innocence.
- The court also concluded Tabi was not "in custody" under § 2255 when he filed the motion because his three-year probation likely expired before 2006; consequently he was not an eligible § 2255 petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) | Tabi sought collateral relief in 2006 (implicitly argues merits or excuse for delay) | Government: conviction final 3/25/1999; § 2255 one-year limit expired 3/25/2000; no exceptions apply | Motion untimely; dismissed under statute of limitations |
| Equitable tolling / actual innocence | Tabi did not assert diligence, extraordinary circumstances, or new evidence of innocence | Court: no allegations or proof supporting equitable tolling or actual innocence | Equitable tolling and actual innocence doctrines not shown; cannot salvage untimely motion |
| "In custody" requirement for § 2255 | Tabi filed § 2255 motion as a former probationer | Government: Tabi completed probation before filing and thus not in custody under § 2255 | Tabi not "in custody" when filing; § 2255 inapplicable |
| Need to reach merits | Tabi seeks relief from conviction | Government: procedural defects bar review | Court declines to reach merits because of procedural bars |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cicero, 214 F.3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (§ 2255 limitations defense and dismissal of untimely motions)
- Williams v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2009) (construing when conviction becomes final and custody requirement for § 2255)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (actual innocence gateway requires new evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict)