Rahami v. United States

Background

Ahmad Khan Rahimi filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate his convictions on Counts Seven and Eight. A petition under Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence in specified circumstances. Rahimi filed the petition without a lawyer.

The challenged counts involved using a destructive device during and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). A jury had convicted Rahimi on all eight counts of the indictment. The court had imposed life sentences on Counts One through Three, a 40-year sentence on Count Four, 20-year sentences on Counts Five and Six, a 30-year sentence on Count Seven, and a life sentence on Count Eight. The sentences on Counts One through Six ran concurrently. The court stated that the sentence for Count Seven was mandatory and consecutive, as was the additional life sentence for Count Eight.

Rahimi argued that Counts Seven and Eight should be vacated based on United States v. Davis, in which the Supreme Court held that the residual-clause definition of “crime of violence” in Section 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. Rahimi had not raised that vagueness argument in his direct appeal. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal in a summary order, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Analysis

The court identified three independent grounds for denying relief.

First, the court held that the petition was untimely. Section 2255 generally imposes a one-year filing period, including a period measured from when a Supreme Court right is newly recognized and made retroactively applicable on collateral review. Rahimi’s judgment became final when the Supreme Court denied his petition for review on January 21, 2020. Davis had been decided earlier, on June 24, 2019. Rahimi’s petition was dated July 18, 2022, and docketed on August 26, 2022, more than one year after both events. The court also held that Rahimi’s allegations about restricted access to legal materials while incarcerated did not establish extraordinary circumstances or justify equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances.

Second, the court held that the petition was procedurally barred. A procedural bar prevents a court from considering a claim in a collateral attack when the claim was not raised on direct appeal, unless the petitioner shows cause for the omission and actual prejudice, or establishes actual innocence. The court found that Rahimi had not shown cause, prejudice, or actual innocence. The court stated that the fact that Davis was decided after Rahimi’s appeal did not change the analysis because the relevant question was whether the claim was available when the appeal was filed.

Third, the court declined to review the claims under the concurrent sentence doctrine. That doctrine permits a court to avoid reviewing a conviction when a favorable ruling would not shorten the petitioner’s incarceration or create a meaningful risk of significant additional consequences. The court applied factors concerning parole eligibility, future repeat-offender statutes, credibility in future trials, the possibility of a pardon, and the social stigma of the conviction. It concluded that reviewing Counts Seven and Eight would not affect Rahimi’s parole eligibility or the application of repeat-offender statutes, and that Rahimi’s life sentences on Counts One through Six meant that a favorable ruling would not shorten his custody.

Disposition

The court denied Rahimi’s petition. It did not recommend issuing a certificate of appealability and requested that the Clerk of Court close the case.