Clarifying the Final Conviction Rule for §2255 Statute of Limitations

Introduction

United States v. Platt (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2025) addresses a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Randy Platt more than two years after his conviction became final. Platt, convicted in January 2020 of assaulting a federal officer and sentenced as a career offender, sought to vacate his sentence on three grounds: a post-conviction change in the definition of “crime of violence,” an alleged invalid collateral-attack waiver in his plea agreement, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief as time-barred, refused equitable tolling, and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, setting forth core principles governing the one-year limitation period under § 2255(f) and emphasizing the narrow reach of equitable tolling.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit held that:

1. Platt’s § 2255 motion was filed on October 11, 2024—well beyond the one-year limitation period that began on January 25, 2022 (the date his conviction became final).
2. Subsequent developments, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States and this court’s decision in United States v. Devereaux, did not reset the one-year clock because Platt’s conviction became final after those decisions.
3. Equitable tolling was unwarranted: Platt failed to present “extraordinary circumstances” or credible proof of actual innocence of his underlying conviction.
4. Platt did not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so a COA was denied and his appeal dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), (3): Establishes the one-year limitation running from the date conviction became final or a newly recognized right by the Supreme Court.
• Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i): Requires that a notice of appeal in a criminal case be filed within 14 days of the judgment, governing finality.
• Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021): Held that offenses with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as “violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Used to assess § 2255(f)(3) applicability.
• United States v. Devereaux, 91 F.4th 1361 (10th Cir. 2024): Determined that a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) for Assault with Serious Bodily Injury is not categorically a crime of violence. Court clarified that § 2255(f)(3) only applies to Supreme Court decisions.
• Kilgore v. Attorney General of Colorado, 519 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 2008): Permits sua sponte dismissal of untimely § 2255 motions when untimeliness is clear on the face of the filing.
• Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000): Defines the “extraordinary circumstances” standard for equitable tolling.
• McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013): Recognizes a narrow “actual innocence” gateway to overcome the AEDPA statute of limitations, though dissent questioned its validity.
• Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998): Distinguishes between legal insufficiency of a conviction’s predicate and factual innocence for equitable tolling.
• Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000): Sets the standard for issuing a COA—showing that reasonable jurists could debate the resolution of the petition.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in two stages:

1. Statute of Limitations Under § 2255(f)(1), the one-year period begins when the conviction becomes final—in Platt’s case, 14 days after the January 11, 2022 judgment entry, i.e., January 25, 2022. His filing more than two years later was plainly untimely. § 2255(f)(3) did not apply because neither Borden nor Devereaux was a Supreme Court decision rendered after his conviction finality.
2. Equitable Tolling and Actual Innocence Even if excused from the limitations period, Platt’s petition lacked any new factual evidence of innocence of the § 111(a) assault conviction. The court emphasized that “mere legal insufficiency” or disagreement with a career-offender enhancement does not meet the high threshold for “actual innocence” under McQuiggin and Bousley. Platt did not allege adversarial misconduct or uncontrollable circumstances that prevented timely filing.

Impact

This decision reinforces three bedrock principles for habeas practitioners and detainees in the Tenth Circuit:

• Strict Adherence to the One-Year Limit: Subsequent circuit holdings—even if they expand or refine definitions of predicate offenses—do not toll the clock once the conviction is final unless the Supreme Court itself recognizes a new right.
• Narrow Equitable Tolling: Petitioners must present credible evidence of factual innocence or extraordinary barriers to filing. Disagreement with sentencing enhancements or plea-agreement provisions is insufficient.
• Rigid COA Standard: Without a substantial showing of constitutional violation, appeals of habeas denials will not proceed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Certificate of Appealability (COA): A judicial authorization required to appeal the denial of a federal habeas petition. It is granted only if reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling.
• Statute of Limitations under § 2255(f): Petitioners have one year from the date their conviction becomes final (or from the Supreme Court’s recognition of a new right) to challenge their sentence.
• Equitable Tolling: An extraordinary remedy that pauses the statutory deadline if a petitioner shows (a) he diligently pursued his rights and (b) extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing.
• Actual Innocence Gate: A limited exception allowing untimely habeas petitions to be heard on the merits if the petitioner establishes factual innocence of the crime itself, not merely a sentencing error.
• Career Offender Enhancement: A Sentencing Guidelines rule (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) that increases a sentence range when a defendant has certain prior convictions classified as “crimes of violence” or controlled-substance offenses.

Conclusion

United States v. Platt serves as an authoritative reminder that the one-year statute of limitations for § 2255 motions is measured from the date a conviction becomes final and is not reset by subsequent circuit decisions. The equitable tolling doctrine remains a narrow gateway, requiring clear proof of factual innocence or truly exceptional circumstances. Petitioners challenging their convictions or sentences must be vigilant in filing within the statutory period and should not rely on later judicial refinements of sentencing law to revive untimely claims. This decision will guide lower courts and litigants in assessing both the timeliness and the merits of future federal habeas petitions.