Summary
This Tenth Circuit opinion addresses a defendant’s pro se § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The defendant argued that Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi recognized a new Second Amendment right applicable to his conduct, thereby tolling the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The court held that neither decision formally recognized a new constitutional right extending to felons or those committing crimes with firearms, rendering the petition untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bruen recognized a new constitutional right applicable to persons convicted of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
- Whether Rahimi, considered together with Bruen, recognized a new Second Amendment right applicable to Barragan-Gutierrez's conduct.
- Whether Barragan-Gutierrez's § 2255 motion was timely under the one-year limitations period in § 2255(f)(3).
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment principles articulated in Bruen and Rahimi.
Holdings
- Neither Bruen nor Rahimi formally recognized, in a definite way, a new Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in furtherance of a crime. Those decisions applied or refined an existing Second Amendment framework rather than creating a newly recognized right applicable to Barragan-Gutierrez's conduct.
- The motion was untimely because no Supreme Court decision recognized a new right applicable to his conviction, so § 2255(f)(3) did not restart the one-year limitations period.
- The court did not reach a merits determination invalidating § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); it affirmed dismissal because the § 2255 motion was time-barred. The court noted that the district court alternatively concluded the merits argument failed because the conviction was for possessing a firearm in furtherance of another crime, not mere coincidental possession.
Key quotations
“Since those cases do not apply to Mr. Barragan-Gutierrez’s circumstances, we AFFIRM the denial of his petition.” (at 3)
“In sum, since the Supreme Court has not announced a new right that is applicable to Mr. Barragan-Gutierrez’s crime of conviction, he is not eligible for § 2255(f)(3)’s renewed one-year statute of limitation.” (at 12)
“We AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Barragan-Gutierrez’s § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.” (at 13)
Factual background
From 2011 through 2014, Barragan-Gutierrez distributed methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin. A search of his home revealed drugs, drug-distribution paraphernalia, a machine gun, and ammunition; he also admitted possessing an AR-15 that he received in exchange for drugs. He pleaded guilty to drug-distribution, money-laundering-conspiracy, and firearm-in-furtherance-of-drug-trafficking charges, and was sentenced to 211 months, later reduced to 181 months.
Procedural history
Barragan-Gutierrez pleaded guilty to, among other offenses, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and received a 211-month sentence, later reduced to 181 months. After Bruen, he filed a § 2255 motion asserting that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) was unconstitutional and that Bruen restarted the one-year limitations period under § 2255(f)(3). The District of Wyoming held the motion untimely and alternatively rejected the merits of the Second Amendment claim. The Tenth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on three issues, appointed counsel, considered Rahimi, and affirmed dismissal. The court's April 15, 2025 opinion was withdrawn and replaced by the revised opinion filed May 12, 2025.