Diaz-Aquino v. United States
- Loretta Preska
- 1:15-cv-07909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Diaz-Aquino v. United States, Judge Preska denied Diaz-Aquino’s late sentence challenge and counsel request, ending the case.
Mabel Diaz-Aquino’s sentence challenge and request for appointed counsel were denied; the court directed that the action be closed, and the United States remained the respondent.
What happened
In Diaz-Aquino v. United States, Mabel Diaz-Aquino asked the court to overturn or correct her criminal sentence under a federal law that allows such challenges. She also asked the court to appoint counsel.
Diaz-Aquino had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a Schedule IV controlled substance. The court sentenced her to two years of probation on January 15, 2014, and her conviction became final on January 29, 2014, because she did not appeal. She filed her challenge in October 2015, more than one year later.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the sentence challenge as barred by the filing deadline and denied the request for counsel as moot. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Diaz-Aquino v. United States · No. 1:15-cv-07909
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Mabel Diaz-Aquino, representing herself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. She also requested appointed counsel. The opinion identifies a related criminal docket, No. 13-CR-537 (RPP).
Diaz-Aquino had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a Schedule IV controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On January 15, 2014, the court entered final judgment and sentenced her to two years’ probation. Because she did not appeal, the conviction became final on January 29, 2014.
Timeliness
Section 2255 motions are subject to a one-year limitations period, meaning the motion generally must be filed within one year after the conviction becomes final. The court received Diaz-Aquino’s motion on October 6, 2015; the motion was dated October 2, 2015. The court had ordered her to submit an affirmation explaining why the motion should not be denied as time-barred, but she never submitted that affirmation.
Ruling
The court denied Diaz-Aquino’s Section 2255 motion as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The court therefore did not reach the underlying challenge to her sentence. Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the request for counsel as moot.
The court also ruled that Diaz-Aquino had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to mark the action closed and mail Diaz-Aquino a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.