Conyers v. United States

Background

Rashaad Conyers pleaded guilty to one count of participating in a racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. On October 20, 2017, the court sentenced him to 180 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The sentence fell within the sentencing-guidelines range that Conyers had stipulated to in his plea agreement.

Conyers appealed while represented by Bradley Henry. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal concerning his sentence and affirmed his conviction and other challenged matters. The mandate issued on August 28, 2019.

Conyers later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He alleged that Henry was ineffective for several reasons, including allegedly failing to tell the court that another person had confessed to the shooting, failing to seek a psychological evaluation, failing to object to the sentence, and failing to properly appeal.

Timeliness ruling

The court held that the petition was untimely. Under § 2255, the relevant one-year filing period began when Conyers’s conviction became final. The court determined that finality occurred no later than November 26, 2019, making November 26, 2020, the filing deadline.

Conyers appeared to have signed the petition on July 20, 2022—more than one and a half years after the deadline. The court also considered whether his earlier June 10, 2021 letter could be treated as an amendment related back to the petition. Even using that letter, the court found that it was filed more than six months late.

A court may extend this deadline in rare and exceptional circumstances if the petitioner shows both that extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and that he acted diligently. Conyers did not request an extension, identify circumstances supporting an extension, or show the required diligence. The court also considered possible effects from the COVID-19 pandemic but found that Conyers had not shown that the pandemic prevented timely filing or that he diligently pursued his rights.

Disposition

The court denied Conyers’s § 2255 petition as untimely. Because of that ruling, it did not decide the ineffective-assistance claims. In a footnote, the court stated that, even if the petition had been timely, the record appeared unlikely to support those claims, but that observation was not the basis for the ruling.

Judge Valerie Caproni also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Conyers had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the related civil case.