Mattera v. United States

Background

John A. Mattera, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate or correct his federal convictions and sentences. The convictions arose from a scheme in which, according to the presentence investigation report, Mattera and others misled investors about special-purpose investment vehicles and transferred more than $11 million from investor escrow accounts to accounts he controlled. The report stated that nearly $4 million was spent on personal expenses.

Mattera pleaded guilty to securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, and money laundering. The court sentenced him to 60 months on the conspiracy count and 132 months on each of the other convictions, with the sentences running at the same time. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal or otherwise challenge a sentence below the stipulated Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months. Mattera did not file a direct appeal.

Claims and limitations period

In his amended petition, Mattera argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his guilty plea and sentencing, that the government failed to disclose helpful evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that his plea agreement was invalid because of actions by his lawyer and the government.

The court explained that a § 2255 petition generally must be filed within one year after the federal conviction becomes final. Because Mattera did not appeal, the court determined that his conviction became final on September 9, 2013. Even assuming that the amended petition related back to the original petition filed on February 2, 2016, the court held that it was untimely.

Mattera argued that the government’s alleged failure to disclose text messages, phone numbers, and emails from a cooperating witness created an obstacle that extended the filing deadline. The court rejected that argument. It held that Mattera had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge the conviction based on the government’s failure to provide Brady material, except for information establishing factual innocence. The court also found that Mattera did not explain how the material was exculpatory, material, or capable of establishing factual innocence.

Mattera also argued that prison conditions, including an early-morning work schedule, left him too little time to prepare his petition. The court held that these circumstances did not justify equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline only in rare circumstances when a person both diligently pursued rights and was prevented from filing by an extraordinary circumstance.

Actual-innocence argument

The court considered the exception allowing an otherwise late petition to proceed when the petitioner can show factual innocence. Mattera asserted actual innocence only as to the money-laundering conviction. The court found that he presented no new evidence and that his statements during the guilty-plea hearing showed that he knew the funds came from fraud and transferred them to an overseas account to avoid government scrutiny. The court therefore rejected the actual-innocence argument.

Ruling

Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the amended petition. The court stated that it did not need to reach the merits because the petition was barred by the one-year filing deadline. It added that, even if it considered the merits, Mattera’s allegations would not establish a constitutional or jurisdictional error or another fundamental defect in the convictions.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Mattera had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Mattera could not proceed on appeal without paying the filing fees. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion, close the civil case, and mail the opinion to Mattera.