UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

v. 

Jonathan Estrada, 

Defendant/Petitioner. 

________________________________/

Case No. 14-20425 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

David R. Grand 

Magistrate Judge 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE § 

2255 HABEAS PETITION AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL [563] 

 Before the Court is Defendant/Petitioner Jonathan Estrada’s 

motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition 

to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and for the court to appoint 

counsel for the purpose of a prospective habeas petition. (ECF No. 563.) 

As Defendant has exceeded the applicable one-year period to file a habeas 

petition, the Court DENIES the motion. 

 On September 18, 2018, the Court issued a judgment sentencing 

Defendant to a prison term of 180 months after he pled guilty to one count 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 566, PageID.3747 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 4
2 

of RICO conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). (ECF No. 463.) 

On September 10, 2021, Defendant filed this motion seeking an extension 

of time to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside his conviction 

because, he argues, “the 6th Circuit has made a ruling stating that the 

RICO Act is ‘[n]ot’ a crime of violence . . . and that the Supreme Court 

has also m[ade] a stay on this same ruling[.]1” (ECF No. 563, 

PageID.3742.) Additionally, he requests appointment of counsel “if there 

is such a change in the law[.]” (Id.) 

An incarcerated person may file a federal habeas petition to vacate 

or set aside a sentence that “was imposed in violation of the Constitution 

or laws of the United States . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 

1 Last year, Mr. Estrada filed a similar motion to extend the time to file a § 

2255 habeas petition. (ECF No. 478.) He sought an extension of time to argue that he 

is actually innocent of the crime for which he pleaded guilty and that his conviction 

no longer qualified as a crime of violence “in light of [the Supreme Court’s decision] 

in United States v. Davis, [139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)].” (ECF No. 478, PageID.2664.) 

Thereafter, he requested that the Court appoint him counsel for the purpose of the 

motion. (See ECF No. 489.) 

On December 9, 2020, the Court denied both motions. (See ECF No. 507.) The 

Court noted that Davis was inapplicable to his case. (See id., PageID.2905 n.3.) 

Further, Mr. Estrada provided no explanation for his delay in appealing his final 

judgment during the required timeframe. (See id., PageID.2906.) 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 566, PageID.3748 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 4
3 

 Detainees seeking to file a federal habeas petition are subject to a 

“1-year period of limitation,” running from the latest of: 

(1)the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 

(2)the date on which the impediment to making a motion created 

by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws 

of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented 

from making a motion by such governmental action; 

(3)the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by 

the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by 

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases 

on collateral review; or 

(4)the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims 

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due 

diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The Court is unaware of any Sixth Circuit case 

holding that a RICO conviction may not be considered a crime of violence. 

Here, Mr. Estrada has not set forth a basis for the Court to calculate the 

one-year habeas filing period at a time later than when the conviction 

became final on October 2, 2018.2 (See ECF No. 507, PageID.2905–06.) 

2 Mr. Estrada filed a similar motion to extend the time to file a § 2255 habeas 

petition last year. (ECF No. 478.) In the Opinion and Order denying that motion, the 

Court explained 

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 566, PageID.3749 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 4
4 

Therefore, with or without the assistance of counsel, Defendant’s 

proposed petition would be denied as untimely. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 18, 2021 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 18, 2021. 

s/William Barkholz 

WILLIAM BARKHOLZ 

Case Manager 

[a]s a general matter, “convictions become final upon conclusion of direct 

review.” Sanchez-Castellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424, 426 (6th Cir. 2004). 

When, as here, “a federal criminal defendant does not appeal to the court of 

appeals, the judgment becomes final upon the expiration of the period in which 

the defendant could have appealed to the court of appeals, even when no notice 

of appeal was filed . . . pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1).” Id.

In this case, the Court issued final judgment on September 18, 2018. 

(ECF No. 463.) Pursuant to the federal rules of appellate procedure, 

Defendant’s deadline for appealing his judgment was 14 days later, on 

Tuesday, October 2, 2018. (Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)). Because Defendant did not 

appeal his judgment, Defendant’s conviction became final on this date. 

(ECF No. 507, PageID.2906.)

Case 5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG ECF No. 566, PageID.3750 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 4