United States of America v. Obaei

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/16/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOSSEIN OBAEI,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13 C 8985
(Criminal Case No. 05 CR 254)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
When Hossein Obaei ("Obaei") filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion
seeking to overturn his conviction in the criminal case that bears the number shown in the
caption of this memorandum order, this Court immediately noted the apparent untimeliness of
that motion as reflected in Obaei's own allegations. Accordingly it promptly issued a December
19, 2013 memorandum opinion and order directing that both Obaei and the Government weigh
in on that issue on or before January 10.
On that date counsel for the Government filed a response on the timeliness issue -- and it
turns out that Obaei had misstated (obviously through an inadvertent error) the date on which the
United States Supreme Court had denied certiorari on his direct appeal -- it was in fact
December 3, 2012 (see Obaei v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 774 (2012)) rather than November 13,
2012, 1 as he had stated. That mistaken dating by Obaei made all the difference, for by reason of
the operation of the "mailbox rule" Obaei's seemingly out-of-time Section 2255 motion was
indeed filed within the one-year limitation period that began on the December 3 date. Hence this

1

That was the date on which the Supreme Court had denied certiorari on the application
by Obaei's co-defendant (see Hosseini v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 623 (2012)).

action can go forward on the merits, and in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts the Government is ordered to
answer Obaei's motion on or before February 28, 2014. 2

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: January 16, 2014

2

That date has been selected on the premise that the Government will be able to assemble
the necessary supporting materials as well as prepare its substantive answer within that time
frame. If however that time period were to prove inadequate, this Court would of course
entertain a Government motion for extension.
-2-