USA v. Tim Williams

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-41134 Vacated & Remanded ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 01/14/2011 [09-41134]

USA v. Tim WilliamsCase: 09-41134

Document: 00511302870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-41134 S u m m a r y Calendar November 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. T IM C WILLIAMS, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:09-CV-109 U S D C No. 2:02-CR-105-1

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T im C. Williams, federal prisoner # 84106-012, appeals the district court's d is m is s a l as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction fo r conspiracy to launder money. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). The d is t r ic t court granted Williams a certificate of appealability on the issue " w h e t h e r [the district court] can determine that [United States v. Santos, 553 U .S . 507 (2008)] is retroactively applicable for purposes of [] § 2255(f)(3), and, if

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-41134 Document: 00511302870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2010 No. 09-41134 s o , whether Santos is retroactively applicable such that Williams' motion [was] t im e ly filed under § 2255(f)(3)." T h is court reviews a district court's findings of fact for clear error and its le g a l conclusions de novo. United States v. Redd, 562 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir.), c e r t. denied, 130 S. Ct. 308 (2009). The limitation period for filing a § 2255 m o t io n runs from, inter alia, "the date on which the right asserted was initially r e c o g n iz e d by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the S u p r e m e Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review." § 2255(f)(3). As the Government concedes, for purposes of retroactivity

c o n c e r n in g the limitations period, any court can hold that a new rule applies r e t r o a c t iv e ly ; it need not be the Supreme Court. See United States v. Lopez, 248 F .3 d 427, 431-32 (5th Cir. 2001). W illia m s argues that in light of Santos, the conduct underlying his c o n v ic t io n for conspiracy to launder money was not criminal because the money a t issue did not constitute "profits." In Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 397 (5th C ir . 2010), we recently held that Santos applied retroactively to cases on c o lla t e r a l review. As the Government concedes, Williams's § 2255 motion was t im e ly filed for purposes of § 2255(f)(3) because his § 2255 motion, filed in May 2 0 0 9 , was filed within one year of the June 2, 2008, Santos decision. Thus, the d is t r ic t court erred in dismissing Williams's § 2255 motion as barred by the s t a t u t e of limitations, and we VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the issue of procedural bar, raised by the Government fo r the first time on appeal, or on the merits of Williams's § 2255 motion. V A C A T E D AND REMANDED.

2