Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02265/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS KONTOGIANNIS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cr0423-LAB

 08cv1373-LAB

ORDER DENYING AS TIMEBARRED PETITION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On February 23,2007, Petitioner Thomas Kontogiannis pleaded guilty to one count

of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The Court entered judgment on May 19, 2008, sentencing him

to 97 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and a fine of $1,050,000. On

July 24, 2008, a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was filed on Kontogiannis’ behalf.

After the Court set a briefing schedule, Kontogiannis filed a motion to withdraw the petition.

He represented that, although he had signed a draft of the petition, it was filed by someone

else without his authorization. The Court therefore on August 28, 2008 granted him leave

to withdraw the petition “without prejudice to refiling at a later date, in accordance with

applicable rules.” (Order of Aug. 28, 2008 (Docket no. 90) at 1:26–2:2. See also Motion to

Withdraw (Docket no. 89) at 4:10–14 (requesting permission to withdraw the motion “without

prejudice to filing such a motion at some later date and in accordance with the applicable

rules”).)

- 1 - 07cr423/08cv1373

Case 3:12-cv-02265-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kontogiannis waited over four years before he filed a new § 2255 petition, bringing

the same claims as in his earlier petition while giving a new and conflicting explanation for

withdrawing that petition. (Docket no. 98.) Earlier he represented that someone else had filed

the petition for him without his permission, and upon discovering this, he sought to have it

withdrawn so that he could look it over. He now maintains that he indeed filed the earlier

petition, but withdrew it because his attorneys persuaded him to do so for tactical reasons.

(Id. at 8, 9.) He also represents that “No further motions were filed in this case,” (id. at 9), 1

although the docket reflects that a post-trial motion to modify the interest on the fine was

filed and adjudicated. The last docket entry before the filing of the current petition was April

28, 2009. 

Had the Court been presented with Kontogiannis’ new explanation instead of the one

he gave at the time, it would have denied his request to withdraw his earlier petition and

would have required Kontogiannis to either pursue his claims or drop them. But the Court

need not determine whether Kontogiannis first or second explanation was false (or whether

both were), because it is clear his petition is time-barred. Petitions filed pursuant to § 2255

are subject to a one-year statute of limitations running from the latest of four dates.

§ 2255(f). Here, the time began to run for Kontogiannis on May 19, 2008, when judgment

was entered. Furthermore, this petition raises the same claims as the earlier one. (Docket

no. 98 at 8 “Petitioner now rehashes the claims raised in his prior petition.”) so he obviously

knew and could have raised these same claims four years ago. The one-year limitations

period thus expired over three years ago, and relief under § 2255 is unavailable.

Kontogiannis repeatedly invokes the phrase “actual innocence,” and if he had any

realistic chance at showing he was actually innocent, he might be able to avoid the time bar.

A petitioner’s colorable claim of actual innocence permits him to proceed with a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, an “escape hatch” to § 2255's otherwise applicable time limitations.

See Harrison v Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958–59 (9 Cir. 2008). But the “escape hatch” th

 Although the petition’s pages are numbered, the numbering restarts midway through 1

the petition. For the sake of clarity, the Court will refer to the docketed page numbers which

can be found in the Electronic Case Filing header at the top of the document.

- 2 - 07cr423/08cv1373

Case 3:12-cv-02265-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provision is only available where a petitioner has not had an “unobstructed procedural shot”

at presenting his claim of actual innocence. Id. Here, Kontogiannis has had that shot, as

illustrated by the fact that he in fact did claim actual innocence in his initial petition, of which

he admits the current petition is merely a “rehash.”

Kontogiannis also cites the Court’s order of August 28, 2008, as if it extended the

limitations period. (See Docket no. 98 at 2 (“Court granted motion to withdraw Section 2255

without prejudice to refiling. The petitioner now refiles.”)) It did not. The Court’s order did not

purport to extend, toll, or suspend the running of the limitations period in § 2255(f); rather,

it specified that he could refile “in accordance with applicable rules.” In other words, because

the initial petition was dismissed without prejudice, if Kontogiannis filed another § 2255

petition, it would not considered a “second or successive” petition. See Green v. White, 223

F.3d 1001, 1002 n.1 (9 Cir. 2000) (explaining that, if initial petition is adjudicated on the th

merits or dismissed with prejudice, later petition will generally be considered “second or

successive”). But if Kontogiannis wanted to file another petition, he still had to comply with

applicable rules. Those “applicable rules” include the one-year limitations period.

Other than the arguments discussed, Kontogiannis makes no effort to show why the

limitations period should be tolled or extended in any way.

Finally, although not necessary to the Court’s decision, it is apparent Kontogiannis’

“actual innocence” claim is frivolous. He essentially argues that he would have been

acquitted at trial because the amount of money fraudulently transferred was $525,000,

instead of over $1 million which (he claims) was alleged in the information. (See Docket no. 2

98 at 10–11.) In fact, the information merely alleges that the amount was “greater than

$10,000.” See also 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) (specifying that the value be “greater than

$10,000"). Rather than the pleading allegations in the complaint, what Kontogiannis is

actually referring to are Guideline provisions that he stipulated to in his plea agreement.

These have no bearing on whether he was guilty of the offense, but relate only to what the 

/ / /

 Kontogiannis waived indictment. 2

- 3 - 07cr423/08cv1373

Case 3:12-cv-02265-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proper sentence was. Based on his own admission, he was guilty, and there is no foundation

for any “actual innocence” argument.

The petition is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 07cr423/08cv1373

Case 3:12-cv-02265-LAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/12 Page 4 of 4