Dimott v. United States

Summary

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of three untimely petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing enhancements after Johnson v. United States and Mathis v. United States. The court held that the petitioners’ claims principally relied on Mathis, which did not restart the one-year limitations period, and that they had not established that their sentences were based on the ACCA residual clause invalidated by Johnson. The court also held that the timeliness issue could be considered for one petitioner despite the government’s failure to raise it in the district court.

Holdings

1. Dimott's and Collamore's petitions were untimely because their sentences were determined to rest on the ACCA enumerated clause, making their challenges Mathis claims rather than Johnson II claims, and Mathis did not reset the one-year limitations period under § 2255(f)(3).
2. The First Circuit could consider the timeliness of Casey's § 2255 petition despite the Government's failure to raise the defense in the district court.
3. A habeas petitioner asserting a Johnson II claim bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the petitioner was sentenced solely under the ACCA residual clause.
4. Casey failed to establish a Johnson II claim because he offered no evidence that the sentencing court relied solely on the ACCA residual clause; his petition therefore depended on the nonretroactive Mathis decision and was untimely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioners' § 2255 motions were timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because they asserted rights newly recognized and made retroactive by Johnson II.
2. Whether a petitioner may use Johnson II to reset the limitations period when the substance of the challenge depends on Mathis's treatment of a prior conviction under the ACCA enumerated clause.
3. Whether the Government forfeited the timeliness defense by failing to raise it in the district court in Casey's case.
4. Whether a § 2255 petitioner bears the burden of proving that the sentencing court relied solely on the ACCA residual clause.

Disposition

affirmed