UNITED STATES v. SCUDERI (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.2021-04-01No. No. 20-3241

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the certificate of appealability, granted the application in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal because Scuderi could not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's procedural ruling that his § 2255 motion was untimely.

Willie Scuderi, a federal prisoner convicted in 2012 of being a felon in possession of a firearm, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to challenge his conviction in February 2020—nearly eight years after his conviction became final. Scuderi argued that his motion was timely because it fell within one year of the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States (2019), which he claimed provided a new constitutional right relevant to his case. The district court rejected this argument, finding that Rehaif has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, and therefore dismissed the motion as procedurally barred by the statute of limitations.

Scuderi then sought a certificate of appealability to pursue an appeal of the dismissal. To obtain such a certificate in a case dismissed on procedural grounds, he was required to show that reasonable jurists could debate both whether his petition stated a valid constitutional claim and whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct. The appellate court concluded that no reasonable jurist could dispute that Scuderi's motion was untimely, since Rehaif has not been made retroactive and the motion was filed well outside the one-year window allowed by statute.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a § 2255 motion filed eight years after conviction becomes final is timely
Whether Rehaif v. United States applies retroactively to collateral review cases
Standards for obtaining a certificate of appealability when a motion is dismissed on procedural grounds

Procedural posture

Scuderi appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 2255 motion as untimely and applied for a certificate of appealability to pursue that appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Petitioner-Appellant Willie Scuderi, a federal inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. United States v. Scuderi, No. 12-10059-EFM, 2020 WL 6939796 (D. Kan. Nov. 25, 2020). In 2012, Mr. Scuderi pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence and did not file any motions in this case until February 2020.

As relevant here, a § 2255 motion must be brought within one year from either the date the conviction became final or the date on which the right asserted was first recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, whichever is later. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), (3). Mr. Scuderi filed the instant motion in 2020, eight years after his conviction became final. He contended in the district court that the motion was timely because it was brought within a year after the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019).

The district court denied the motion as untimely, concluding that Rehaif is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Scuderi, 2020 WL 6939796, at *2–3.

To obtain a COA, Mr. Scuderi must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because the district court dismissed Mr. Scuderis § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Here, Mr. Scuderi filed his motion eight years after his conviction became final and Rehaif has not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court or any Court of Appeals. See Mata v. United States, 969 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2020). Accordingly, no reasonable jurist would debate the district courts procedural ruling that the motion was untimely, and we therefore need not consider whether Mr. Scuderi made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

We DENY a COA, GRANT IFP, and DISMISS the appeal.

FOOTNOTES

. Mr. Scuderi filed three § 2255 motions in this case, in February, July, and August 2020, respectively. The Supreme Court decided Rehaif on June 21, 2019. Therefore, only Mr. Scuderis February 2020 motion could even arguably be timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge