Christman v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-08124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Christman v. United States, Judge Seibel dismissed Christman’s post-conviction petition as untimely and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Silviano Christman, whose § 2255 petition was dismissed as untimely; the court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Christman v. United States, Silviano Christman asked the court to set aside his conviction and sentence. Although he filed the case under a law for challenging detention, the court treated it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it challenged his conviction and sentence.
Christman said he had asked his lawyer to file an appeal but learned only after the deadline for a § 2255 petition had passed that no appeal notice was filed. The court found that nearly six years had passed since his conviction became final, and Christman did not explain why he failed to ask his lawyer or either court about the appeal during that time.
Judge Seibel dismissed the petition as untimely because Christman did not show that he acted diligently or that special circumstances justified extending the deadline. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to close the civil case.
The detailed version
- Christman v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-08124
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Silviano Christman filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge certain aspects of a person’s detention. Because his filing sought to vacate his conviction and sentence in No. 14-CR-236, the court construed it as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court gave Christman the option to withdraw the filing or explain why it should not be dismissed as untimely. Although his response was late, the court considered it.
Christman’s Position
Christman alleged that at his October 14, 2014 sentencing, he asked his lawyer to file a notice of appeal. He said he did not learn that the lawyer had failed to file the notice until after the deadline for filing a § 2255 petition had passed. He attempted to explain why his petition was late rather than withdrawing it.
Court’s Analysis
Section 2255 generally requires a petition to be filed within one year after the conviction becomes final. The court found that Christman’s judgment was entered on November 3, 2014, and that his conviction became final on November 17, 2014. Christman filed this case almost six years later.
The court considered the possible exception that starts the one-year period when the facts supporting a claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. It found that Christman had not shown reasonable diligence. He did not explain why he made no inquiries of his lawyer, the district court, or the Court of Appeals for several years. The court also noted that proceedings concerning his alleged violation of supervised-release conditions occurred during that period, and that Christman was represented by the same lawyer without raising the appeal issue. The court further found that Christman had not identified grounds for extending the deadline on fairness grounds.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the petition as untimely. The court did not reach the underlying claim about the lawyer’s failure to file a notice of appeal. Because Christman had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required to pursue an appeal from the denial of this type of petition. The clerk was directed to docket the order in both cases, close No. 20-CV-8124, and send Christman a copy.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.