Hines v. United States

Background

Ardae Hines filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence, asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during motion practice, in connection with his guilty plea, at sentencing, and because counsel did not file a notice of appeal. The United States opposed the motion, and defense counsel submitted an affirmation.

Hines pleaded guilty on February 7, 2019, under an agreement that stipulated to a Sentencing Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. The court sentenced him on July 31, 2019, principally to 180 months in prison, and entered judgment on August 1, 2019. Because Hines did not appeal, the conviction became final on August 15, 2019. The one-year filing period therefore expired on August 15, 2020. Hines filed the § 2255 petition on November 30, 2020.

Timeliness

The court held that the petition was untimely. It considered whether another statutory deadline applied or whether equitable tolling could excuse the late filing. Equitable tolling is a limited extension of a filing deadline when a person has pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing.

Hines pointed to pandemic-related restrictions on access to the prison law library and legal assistance, as well as difficulty obtaining legal documents. The court rejected these arguments. It found that the pandemic was not a government-created barrier under the relevant statute, and Hines had not shown that restrictions or missing materials actually prevented him from filing. The court noted that the petition was based on facts Hines allegedly already knew and that he could have filed a basic petition or requested additional time. The court also noted that Hines had seven months before the pandemic to file.

Actual Innocence

Hines also asserted that he was actually innocent. The court explained that this exception requires factual innocence—meaning that the person did not commit the underlying acts—not merely a legal argument that the conviction was defective. The court found that Hines had not made a non-frivolous showing of factual innocence and that his own statement was contradicted by his guilty-plea statements, counsel’s affirmation, and the Government’s representations about the evidence.

Disposition

Because the petition was untimely, the court did not reach the merits of Hines’s ineffective-assistance claims. It added that, in the main, those claims appeared contradicted by Hines’s statements or counsel’s affirmation, or did not show prejudice. The court denied the Petition, directed the clerk to docket the order in both the criminal and civil cases, terminate the motion in the criminal case, and close the civil case. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Hines had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.