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, District Judge Kaplan denied Ayyad’s post-conviction motion as untimely without deciding whether the alleged courtroom inattention violated his rights.
Nidal Ayyad’s post-conviction challenge was denied as untimely, and the related civil case was closed; the opinion did not reach the merits of his constitutional claim.
What happened
In Ayyad v. United States, Nidal Ayyad asked the court to set aside his convictions based on his claim that the trial judge fell asleep for an unspecified period during his lawyer’s closing argument and that jurors were distracted. Ayyad was convicted on multiple felony counts arising from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
The court said the motion was filed more than one year after the relevant judgment became final. The court also noted that Ayyad’s own motion indicated he knew about the alleged inattention when it happened. Although the court expressed doubt that the claim showed a constitutional violation or prejudice, it did not decide those issues.
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the motion as untimely and directed the Clerk to close the civil case, 25-cv-1766.
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 procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He had been convicted on multiple felony counts connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His convictions included two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for which he received consecutive mandatory sentences. His total sentence was 1,405 months of imprisonment.
Ayyad previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging those two § 924(c) convictions. In 2020, the court granted that earlier motion only as to Count 10, vacated that conviction, and denied the motion in all other respects. The court entered later amended judgments, including a third amended judgment in August 2021.
Current Motion
Ayyad’s current motion claimed that the judge who presided over his 1994 trial fell asleep for an unspecified period during defense counsel’s closing argument and that jurors were distracted by the alleged inattention. Ayyad did not claim that the judge made, or was required to make, any ruling during that period.
The court stated that it was doubtful the motion identified a legally sufficient constitutional violation or showed that Ayyad was prejudiced. The court did not resolve those questions, however, because it concluded that the motion was untimely.
Timeliness Analysis
Section 2255(f) generally requires a § 2255 motion to be filed within one year from the latest of specified dates, including when the conviction becomes final or when the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The court concluded that Ayyad knew about the alleged judicial inattention when it occurred. It also concluded that the conviction became final decades earlier.
Even assuming that the August 17, 2021 third amended judgment was the relevant judgment, the court said that judgment became final after Ayyad did not appeal within the applicable 14-day period. The current motion, which could not have been filed earlier than September 30, 2024, therefore was untimely.
Disposition
The court denied the motion. It directed the Clerk to close civil case 25-cv-1766. Because the court resolved the motion on timeliness grounds, it did not decide whether the alleged courtroom inattention violated Ayyad’s constitutional rights.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.