Summary
The Eleventh Circuit held that Antonio Akel’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was not an unauthorized second or successive motion because it followed a new, intervening Amended Judgment entered after his unlawful sentences on two counts were corrected. The court rejected a claim-by-claim approach and concluded that the Amended Judgment constituted the operative judgment authorizing Akel’s confinement. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a § 2255 motion filed after a resentencing and intervening Amended Judgment is a second or successive motion when the Amended Judgment corrected unlawful sentences and changed the conviction description for one count.
- Whether the invited-error doctrine barred appellate relief because Akel moved to dismiss his § 2255 motion after the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction.
Holdings
- A § 2255 motion filed after a new, intervening judgment is not second or successive for purposes of AEDPA. Because the 2017 Amended Judgment vacated and replaced the unlawful original judgment, altered the terms of imprisonment and supervised release, and corrected the Count Two conviction description, it was a new judgment authorizing Akel's confinement. The district court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the instant § 2255 motion.
- The invited-error doctrine did not bar relief because Akel did not induce the district court's jurisdictional error; he repeatedly objected to the determination that his motion was unauthorized and sought dismissal only after the court had already made that erroneous determination.
Key quotations
“After careful review, we conclude that Akel’s motion is not a second or successive motion because it challenges a new, intervening Amended Judgment.” (2)
“Accordingly, we conclude that the 2017 Amended Judgment was a new, intervening judgment authorizing Akel’s confinement for purposes of AEDPA.” (17-18)
Factual background
Akel was convicted of drug-conspiracy, marijuana-distribution, and felon-in-possession offenses and originally received concurrent 480-month sentences. The original judgment incorrectly treated Count Two as involving cocaine even though the jury found only marijuana, and the 480-month sentences on Counts Two and Seven exceeded the applicable statutory maximums. In proceedings on Akel's initial § 2255 motion, the district court reduced the sentences on Counts Two and Seven, corrected the Count Two conviction description, and entered a 2017 Amended Judgment. Akel later filed the instant § 2255 motion challenging matters concerning his original conviction and sentence.
Procedural history
Akel's initial § 2255 motion led to resentencing after the district court determined that his sentences on Counts Two and Seven were unlawful and entered a 2017 Amended Judgment. After pursuing a direct appeal from that Amended Judgment, Akel filed the instant § 2255 motion. The district court treated the motion as unauthorized and jurisdictionally barred, granted Akel's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the instant § 2255 motion on the merits or otherwise as permitted by law. The court expressed no opinion on the possible effect of res judicata or the law-of-the-case doctrine.