United States v. Williams ( 2020 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 20-6027
v. (D.C. Nos. 5:19-CV-00982-R &
5:15-CR-00174-R-1)
HADORI KARMEN CHANTEL (W.D. Okla.)
WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging ineffective assistance
of counsel and challenging his armed career criminal sentence. The district court
dismissed the action as untimely and denied Defendant a certificate of appealability.
Now, Defendant requests a certificate of appealability from this Court. Exercising
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), we deny Defendant a certificate of appealability
and dismiss Defendant’s appeal.
If a district court denies a motion to vacate on procedural grounds without
reaching the defendant’s underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability
will issue when the defendant shows “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see also United States v. Crooks,
769 F. App’x 569, 571 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). The defendant must satisfy
both parts of this threshold inquiry before we can hear the merits of the appeal. Gibson
v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 802 (10th Cir. 2000).
In this case, the district court dismissed Defendant’s motion to vacate as
untimely. After carefully reviewing Defendant’s request for a certificate of
appealability, the district court’s order of dismissal, and the record on appeal, we agree
that Defendant’s claims are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s one-year statute of
limitations. Defendant attempts to escape this conclusion by arguing he is entitled to
equitable tolling because he is actually innocent and failure to address his claims would
result in a miscarriage of justice.
While § 2255’s one-year limitation period is subject to equitable tolling in
certain circumstances, including when an inmate is actually innocent, Defendant fails
to show he is actually innocent of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Rather,
Defendant argues he should not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal.
2
Relying on United States v. Hamilton, 889 F.3d 688 (10th Cir. 2018), Defendant argues
his prior state convictions for second degree burglary and attempted first degree
burglary should not have been considered crimes of violence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We have held, however, that “[p]ossible
misuse of a prior conviction as a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines does
not demonstrate actual innocence.” Sandlain v. English, 714 F. App’x 827, 831 (10th
Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Thus, Defendant’s attempt to circumvent the one-year
limitation period through a showing of actual innocence fails.
Moreover, as the district court notes in its order of dismissal, equitable tolling
applies when “an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure
to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.” United
States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121, 1124 (citing Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220
(10th Cir. 2000)). In this case, Defendant has not shown any extraordinary
circumstance caused his failure to timely file. Although he relies on United States v.
Hamilton to argue he only recently discovered his prior state convictions do not qualify
as crimes of violence under the ACCA, Hamilton was decided on May 4, 2018. 889
F.3d 688. Defendant did not file his motion to vacate until October 26, 2019.
Defendant provides no explanation as to why he delayed in filing his motion to vacate
until more than one year after this Court issued its decision in Hamilton. He certainly
has not shown he pursued his claims diligently, or that his failure to timely file was
caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. See Gabaldon, 522 F.3d at
1124.
3
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s
order, we hold that no reasonable jurist would find it “debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 478. Therefore, we
GRANT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENY Defendant’s request
for a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
4