Meregildo v. United States

Background

Joshua Meregildo, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. A jury had convicted him of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, murder-related offenses, narcotics conspiracy, and firearm offenses. The court had sentenced him principally to life imprisonment plus 60 months served consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Meregildo filed an initial § 2255 petition and later received permission to file two amended petitions. Across those filings, he raised challenges to the indictment, jury instructions, and the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel. His second amended petition also argued that mandatory life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment because he was 19 years old when he committed the crimes.

Initial Petition

The court denied the claim that Count Fifteen of the superseding indictment was defective because Meregildo had not raised it before trial, after trial, or on direct appeal. He did not adequately explain how his lawyers’ performance caused that failure, so he did not establish a basis to excuse the procedural bar.

The court also denied Meregildo’s claim that the jury instructions and verdict sheet improperly changed the indictment. The court of appeals had already rejected that same argument, holding that the supplemental instruction did not change an essential element of the offense. The district court therefore would not reconsider it in the § 2255 proceeding.

Meregildo’s related challenge to the jury instructions was likewise barred because it repeated the issue rejected on appeal and was not independently raised on appeal. The court also stated that an objection would have been meritless under the court of appeals’ decision, so counsel was not ineffective for failing to make it.

Finally, the court rejected Meregildo’s argument that Counts Five and Six were unconstitutional because they did not adequately allege an effect on interstate commerce. The court found the argument procedurally barred and, alternatively, factually incorrect. According to the court, those counts incorporated allegations that the alleged enterprise affected interstate and foreign commerce and engaged in racketeering activity, including narcotics trafficking and murder.

First Amended Petition

The court held that the claims added in the First Amended Petition were untimely under the one-year filing limit for § 2255 motions. Under the rule governing amended pleadings, a late claim may proceed only if it relates back to the original filing by sharing a common core of operative facts. The court found that the added claims concerned different indictment counts and different alleged omissions than the original claims. The three claims Meregildo called supplemental therefore did not relate back, and the three claims he acknowledged were new also did not relate back.

Meregildo argued that his confinement in a special housing unit, where he said he lacked access to legal materials, justified the delay. The court rejected that argument because the one-year deadline had expired nearly a year before that confinement. The court therefore did not need to decide whether the confinement could qualify as an extraordinary circumstance supporting equitable tolling.

Second Amended Petition

Meregildo’s second amended petition argued that the Eighth Amendment rule in Miller v. Alabama, which bars mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders, should extend to people who were 19 when they committed their crimes. The court held that this claim did not relate back to the initial petition, which contained no facts about Meregildo’s age, the Eighth Amendment, or sentencing. The claim was also filed more than one year after the Supreme Court recognized the relevant right in Miller.

The court additionally held that the claim was procedurally barred because Meregildo had not raised it at trial or on direct appeal. On the merits, the court concluded that existing law did not extend Miller to defendants older than 18. It relied on a court of appeals decision rejecting that extension for defendants between 18 and 22 years old. The court therefore stated that the claim would fail even if it were timely and not procedurally barred.

Disposition

The court denied Meregildo’s Initial Petition, First Amended Petition, and Second Amended Petition. Because Meregildo had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court did not issue a certificate of appealability. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and close the case.