Ayyad v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-01766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ayyad v. United States, Judge Kaplan declined to reach Nidal Ayyad’s constitutional claim because his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was untimely.
Nidal Ayyad, whose § 2255 motion was found untimely and whose related civil case was ordered closed.
What happened
Ayyad v. United States concerns Nidal Ayyad’s latest request to challenge his federal convictions and sentence under a law allowing federal prisoners to seek post-conviction relief. Ayyad argued that the trial judge had fallen asleep during part of his lawyer’s closing argument and that jurors were distracted.
The court said the claim appeared unlikely to show a constitutional violation or prejudice, but it did not decide those issues. Instead, it ruled that the motion was filed too late under the one-year deadline for these requests. The court noted that Ayyad said he knew about the judge’s alleged inattention when it happened and that the conviction became final decades earlier.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan directed the Clerk to close the related civil case. The reproduced opinion does not contain the complete sentence stating the motion’s precise disposition, so the exact wording of that ruling is unclear.
The detailed version
- Ayyad v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-01766
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
Nidal Ayyad sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a statute that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in certain circumstances. The opinion states that Ayyad was convicted on multiple felony counts arising from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His sentence included convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), including Count 10, which had previously been vacated in an earlier round of this case. The court entered a third amended judgment on August 17, 2021.
The present motion, which the court said could not have been filed earlier than September 30, 2024 under the prisoner-mailbox rule, raised a new claim. Ayyad alleged that the trial judge, who was not the factfinder, slept for an unspecified period during his lawyer’s closing argument and that jurors were distracted by this.
Analysis
Section 2255(f) generally imposes a one-year limitations period. For the grounds relevant here, the period runs from the later of the date the conviction became final or the date the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through due diligence.
The court concluded that the motion was untimely. It stated that Ayyad’s motion showed he knew about the judge’s alleged inattention when it occurred. The court also explained that the conviction became final decades earlier. Even assuming the relevant judgment was the third amended judgment, the court said that judgment became final after Ayyad did not appeal within 14 days after its entry on August 17, 2021.
The court observed that the claim also appeared unlikely to establish a legally sufficient constitutional violation or prejudice. It cited authority stating that juror inattentiveness or sleeping generally does not warrant a new trial without a showing that the defendant was denied a fair trial. But the court expressly said it was unnecessary to decide that issue because the motion was untimely.
Disposition
The opinion directs the Clerk to close civil case number 25-cv-1766. The reproduced text of the disposition is incomplete: it states, “Accordingly, the motion” and then directs the Clerk to close the case. Because the missing text may contain the precise outcome verb, this summary does not supply one. The court’s stated basis for ending the matter was untimeliness, not a decision on the merits of the constitutional claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.