United States v. Limon

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 2, 2021 · No. 20-50792

Summary

The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on whether the district court erred in dismissing Gilbert Limon's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely, finding that reasonable jurists could debate the timeliness ruling due to the date of entry of judgment and the prison mailbox rule. The court also found debatable whether Limon stated a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and failing to file a notice of appeal. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Clement; Elrod; Haynes
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 2, 2021
Docket number
20-50792
Procedural posture
Appeal from denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely; motion for certificate of appealability.
Standard of review
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the movant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
Precedential value
Unpublished
Parties
Gilbert Limon, III v. United States of America
Disposition
vacated

Topics

habeas corpusineffective assistancestatute of limitationsappellate jurisdictionsixth amendmentcriminal procedure

Practice areas

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefHabeas Corpus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Limon's § 2255 motion as untimely.
  2. Whether Limon's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to withdraw guilty plea and failing to file a notice of appeal upon instruction.

Holdings

  1. Reasonable jurists could find the district court's determination that the motion was untimely debatable, so a COA is granted on that issue.
  2. Reasonable jurists would debate whether Limon has stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right on these claims.

Key quotations

Limon has demonstrated that jurists of reason could find the district court’s determination that his § 2255 motion was untimely debatable. (Page: 2)
In addition, based on our review of the relevant materials, reasonable jurists would debate whether Limon has stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Page: 2)
Accordingly, a COA is GRANTED as to whether the district court erred by dismissing his motion as time barred. As further briefing is not necessary on this issue, the judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. (Page: 3)

Factual background

Limon was convicted and sentenced in federal court. The criminal judgment was signed on December 21, 2017, but not entered until December 26, 2017. Limon subsequently filed a § 2255 motion, which the district court dismissed as time-barred. Limon argues that the prison mailbox rule should apply to deem his motion timely filed, and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and failing to file a notice of appeal upon his instruction.

Procedural history

Limon, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2255 motion challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the motion as untimely. Limon appealed and seeks a COA.

Remand instructions

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the § 2255 motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…