William Gray, Jr. v. R. Lee, 608 F. App'x 172

William Robert Gray, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; this court previously granted habeas relief as to sentencing and ordered resentencing unless the state provided a new sentencing hearing within a reasonable time.
The district court gave the state 180 days (order entered Aug. 7, 2008) to resentence Gray or to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Nearly five years passed without resentencing; Gray filed pro se motions in 2013, primarily challenging the long delay in resentencing (treated as a § 2241 execution-of-sentence challenge).
The district court denied Gray’s motion as moot (mistakenly believing resentencing had occurred) and later denied reconsideration, finding the five-year delay reasonable because Gray’s trial counsel had negotiated postponements beneficial to Gray.
Gray appealed the denial of reconsideration; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record, concluded Gray had not made the showing required for a certificate of appealability, and affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the five-year delay in resentencing was unreasonable and warranted relief (release or life sentence)	Gray: five-year delay was unreasonable and violated his rights; sought relief under § 2241	State: delay was reasonable; trial counsel negotiated postponements that benefited Gray	Court: affirmed district court — delay was reasonable given counsel-negotiated postponements
Whether the district court properly denied Gray’s pro se motion as moot and then denied reconsideration	Gray: denial was improper; reconsideration warranted	State: denial was proper (and district court correctly found delay reasonable)	Court: affirmed denial of reconsideration; appeal brings underlying order along with motion denial
Whether Gray’s McQuiggin-based actual-innocence argument may be considered in this proceeding	Gray: raised actual-innocence claim referencing McQuiggin v. Perkins	State: claim attacks the underlying conviction, was outside scope of the § 2241 sentencing challenge, and was not before the district court	Court: declined to consider the actual-innocence claim here as it was outside the scope of the district-court proceedings
Whether Gray made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability	Gray: implicit request via appeal	State: Grey failed to make substantial showing of denial of constitutional right	Court: concluded Gray did not meet § 2253(c) standard and affirmed

Gray v. Banker, 529 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2008) (prior habeas decision ordering resentencing unless state acted within reasonable time)
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (treat pro se prisoner pleadings by content not caption)
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (execution-of-sentence challenges properly raised in § 2241)
Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807 (4th Cir. 1978) (appeal from denial of reconsideration brings underlying order before the court)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome habeas time bar)