Williams v. United States
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-06848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. United States, Judge Furman kept the denial of Williams’s time-barred conviction challenge and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Gerald Williams’s federal post-conviction motion remained time barred, and he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, Gerald Williams asked the court to reconsider its denial of his motion challenging his federal conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court had denied the motion as too late after Williams did not initially respond to an order asking him to explain why it should not be denied.
Williams later sent a letter arguing that his motion was timely because it was filed within one year of a Second Circuit decision, United States v. Townsend. He acknowledged that Townsend did not qualify under the deadline provision for new Supreme Court decisions, but argued that it was a newly discoverable fact. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a legal decision that does not change the person’s criminal history is a legal ruling, not a new fact.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adhered to the conclusion that Williams’s motion was time barred, regardless of whether the later letter was treated as timely. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-06848
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
Gerald Williams filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court previously ordered Williams to show cause—explain why the motion should not be denied—as time barred. After receiving no submission by the deadline, the court denied the motion as time barred on January 21, 2020.
The court later received a January 27 letter from Williams responding to the show-cause order. The court stated that it did not need to decide whether the letter was timely because the letter would not change the conclusion that the § 2255 motion was too late.
Williams’s Argument
Williams based his motion on United States v. Townsend, a Second Circuit decision. He conceded that the motion was not timely under § 2255(f)(3), which applies when a motion relies on a right newly recognized by the Supreme Court. Williams instead argued that the motion was timely under § 2255(f)(4), which concerns a newly discovered factual basis for a claim. He argued that Townsend was a new fact discovered within the applicable one-year period.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected that argument. It explained that a legal decision that does not change any part of a person’s own criminal history is a ruling of law, not a new factual basis for a federal habeas claim. The court therefore concluded that Townsend did not make Williams’s otherwise untimely motion timely.
Disposition
The court adhered to its conclusion that Williams’s motion was time barred, whether his letter was treated as timely or as a timely request for reconsideration. The court also stated that Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without paying court fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Williams.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the § 2255 motion as time barred without reaching the underlying challenge to Williams’s conviction or sentence.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.