IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROMEO TRINIDAD FLORES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

March 5, 1998

Before GARWOOD, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-appellant Romeo Trinidad Flores, Jr. (Flores)

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

On August 29, 1991, Flores was convicted following a jury

trial of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess

of 1,000 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,1

A detailed account of the offense and the circumstances surrounding

Flores’ arrest and trial can be found in United States v. Flores

, 985 F.2d 770, 771-74 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.

3

110 Stat. 1220 (codi fied at 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Supp. 1997)). The

amendment, as codified, reads:

“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a

motion under this section. The limitation period shall

run 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 gove rnmental action in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

movant was prevented from making such 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 mad e retroactively

2 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). 1 On direct appeal, this Court

reversed Flores' conviction due to the erroneous admission of his

codefendant’s grand jury testimony. United States v. Flores , 985

F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1993). In his second jury trial, Flores was

again convicted. In an opinion dated November 3, 1994, we affirmed

the second conviction. United States v. Flores , 40 F.3d 385 (5th

Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision).

On April 24, 1996, the An ti-terrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter "AEDPA" or "Act") was signed into

law. 2 Most pertinent to Flores, section 105 of the Act amended 28

U.S.C. § 2255 to include a one-year period of limitations. 3applicable to cases on collateral review; or

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

cl aims presented could have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence.”

4

Flores filed his motion on or about August 19, 1996.

5

The COA specifically author ized appeal of two issues. First,

"whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is time barred when it is filed

(1) within one year following the effective date of the Anti3 Approximately four months after the enactment of the AEDPA, Flores

filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, asserting numerous errors including ineffective assistance

of counsel, outrageous government misconduct, violation of the

Jenks Act, a Brady violation, and error in the jury instructions. 4

In response, the government filed a motion to dismiss, or in

the alt ernative, for summary judgment, arguing both that Flores’

motion was procedurally barred by the one-year period of limitation

contained in section 2255 as amended by AEDPA (but there

acknowledging that a Department of Justice “policy letter”

construed the Act’s limitations period to commence to run on its

effective date) and that the allegations in Flores’ m otion were

fatally conclusory and lacked any e videntiary support. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government,

finding Flo res' contentions to be "entirely conjectural and

unsupported by anything in the record." Flores filed a timely

notice of appeal, and a certificate of appealability (COA) was

granted to permit Flores’ appeal to this Court. 5terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (A EDPA), i.e.,

April 24, 1996, but (2) more than one yea r after the judgment of

conviction became final, and (3) the date on which the judgment of

conviction became final was either (a) more than one year before

the effective date o f AEDPA, as is the case with the instant

mot ion, or (b) less than one year before the effective date of

AEDPA." Appeal of a second issue, whether the district court

adequately stated its reasons for dismissing the motion, was also

authorized in the COA.

6

See, e.g., United States v. Shunk

, 113 F.3d 31 (5th Cir. 1997),

where we acknowledged the difficulty involved in determining the

potential retroactive application of the limitations period,

stating that, "[n]eedless to say, it presents importan t and

dif ficult issues. And, there are obvious and quite forceful

arguments against its application." I d. at 34. We declined to

reach the question in that case, however, because neither side had

presented it on appeal. Id.

7

The AEDPA contains two nearly identical limitations provisions.

Section 105(2) amends 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is the provision in

question in this case. A second, virtually identical limitations

period is contained in section 101, which amends 28 U.S.C. § 2244

4 Discussion

The district court did not address the limitations question,

denying the motion on other grounds. However, because we may

aff irm on any grounds that were urged below, we address as a

threshold issue whether Flores’ motion is time barred under the

limitations period of the amended section 2255.

The applicability of the li mitations provision to motions

filed after the enactment of the AEDPA but attacking convictions

which became final prior thereto is a question of first impression

in this Circuit. 6 Those of our sister circuits that have

considered the issue 7 have all held that such petitioners must be(relating to attacks on state court convictions o r sentences) to

impose a one-year period of limitations on petitions made under

that section.

Because of the similarity of the actions under sections 2254

and 2255, they have traditionally been read in pari materia where

the context does not indicate that would be improper. See, e.g.

, McFarland v. Scott

, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 2573 (1994) (noting that the

"terms ‘post conviction’ and ‘habeas co rpus’ also are used

interchangeably in legal parlance to refer to proceedings under §

2254 and § 2255" and accordingly statutes providing for postconviction relief should, unless context ma ndates otherwise, be

read in pari materia .) Thus, although the application of the

limitations period in the amended section 2255 is in question in

the case sub judice

, in our discussion below we refer to cases

involving section 2254 as relevant to our analysis, and we

similarly do not adhere to the linguistic "motion/petition"

distinction in referring to the filing that a prisoner makes to

begin proceedings under sections 2255 and 2254 (technically, a

pleading filed under section 2255 is referred to as a "motion,"

while one filed under section 2254 is a "petition").

8

See, e.g., United States v. Simmonds

, 111 F.3d 737, 745-46 (10th

Cir. 1997) ("[W]e hold application of the new time period to

[petitioner’s] § 2 255 motion without first affording him a

reasonable time to bring his claim impermissi bly retroactive.");

Lindh v. Murphy , 96 F.3d 856, 866 (7th Cir. 1996), rev’d on other

grounds

, 11 7 S.Ct. 2059 (1997) (holding that habeas petitioners

have a "reasonable post-amendment time to get liti gation

underway"); Calder on v. United States District Court for the

Central District of California

, 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997)

(same with respect to section 2254 petitions); Peterson v. Demskie

, 107 F.3d 92, 93 (2d Cir. 1997) (same).

5 accorded a reasonable time after the enactment of the AEDPA within

which to pursue collateral relief. 8 Perhaps the seminal case that

came to this conclusion was Lindh v. Murphy

, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.

1996), which determined that prisoners’ reliance interests dictated

that no collateral attack filed within one year of the AEDPA’s

enactment would be dismissed as time barred under the AEDPA

limitation periods. I d. at 866. The Supreme Court granted9

The issue in the Supreme Court was whether certain sections of

Title I of the AEDPA would apply to cases that were pending at the

time of the AEDPA’s enactment. The Supreme Court held that they

did not. L indh

, 117 S.Ct. at 2063. This specific holding is only

tangentially relevant to our decision in this cas e, so we do not

discuss it at length.

10

See Lindh

, 117 S.Ct. at 2068 ("All we can say is that in a world of

silk purses and pigs’ ears, the Act is not a silk purse of the art

of statutory drafting.").

6 ce rtiorari in Lindh and reversed on a separate issue. 9 L indh v.

Murphy

, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997). Although the Court did not

specifically address the limitation provisions, or the Seventh

Circuit’s interpretation of it in Lindh

, it did clarify the

appropriate construction and temporal application of Title I of the

Act, which contains these provisions. Thus, although L indh does

not provide an answ er to the question before us, it does help to

define the appropriate inquiry.

It is axiomatic that the touchstone of statutory construction

is legislative intent. Unfortunately, as is often the case,

Congress’s intent as to the appropriate temporal application of the

limitation provisions is neit her apparent on the face of the

statute nor o therwise unambiguously expressed. As the Supreme

Court noted in Lindh

, the AEDPA is unclear in a number of important

respects, including the temporal reach of several provisions. 10 In

resolving the ambiguity as to the temporal reach of the AEDPA

habeas amendments in general, the Court stated that "[i]n11

St. Louis v. Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission

, 65 F.3d 43, 46

(5th Cir. 1995). Similarly, it is often said that statutes of

l imitation go to matters of remedy rather than to fundamen tal

rights. See, e.g., Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson , 65 S.Ct.

1137, 1142 ( 1 945) ("This Court,

. . . adopted as a working

hypothesis, as a matter o f constitutional law, the view that

statutes of limitation go to matters of remedy, not to destruction

of fundamental rights."); Singer, Statutes and Statutory

Construction § 41.09 (5th Ed. 1993) ("[s]tatutes of limitation are

generally held to relate to remedies rather than rights") (footnote

7 determining whether a statute’s terms would produce a retroactive

effect,

. . . and in determining a statute’s temporal reach

generally, our normal rules of cons truction apply." L indh

, 117

S.Ct. at 2063.

We have interpreted Lindh as articulating a ge nerallyapplicable "analysis governing the temporal reach of newly enacted

legislation." W illiams v. Cain

, 117 F.3d 863, 864 (5th Cir. 1997).

As the Supreme Court stated in Lindh

, and we reiterated in

Williams

, "[i]n the absence o f a plain statement of the

legislature’s intent that a statute be applied r etroactively, a

court must ask whether normal rules of statutory construction

suggest that a new provision applies to the case before it."

Williams

, 117 F.3d at 864 (citing Lindh

, 117 S.Ct. at 2063-64).

Thus, we apply the traditional rules of statutory construction to

the provision before us in determining its temporal reach.

In applying legislative ly amended periods of limitation, we

have typically construed them as "govern[ing] the secondary conduct

of filing suit, not the primary conduct of the [parties]." 11 As aomitted).

Consequently, the canon of statutory construction mandating a

presumption against retroactivity has been said to apply with less

force, or not at all, to changes in limitations periods. As stated

in one text: "[S]tatutes relating to remedies or modes of

procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but

only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of such

rights, do not normally come within the legal conception of a

retrospective law, or the general rule against t he retrospective

operation of statutes." 73 Am.Jur.2d S tatutes § 354 (1974)

(footnote omitted).

12

The claimed acts of discrimination occurred in May 1991. In

November 1991, the limitations period was shortened from two years,

running from the time of the discrimination, to ninety days from

the time the plaintiff received notice of his right to sue from the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. S t. Louis

, 65 F.3d at 44-

45. Plaintiff received his right to sue letter in July 1992. The

letter advised him he should file suit not later than ninety days

after its receipt. However, he did not file his suit until May

8 consequence, we normally apply the statute of limitation that was

in effect at the time of the filing of the suit. We recently took

this approach in St. Louis v. Texas Worker’s Compensation

Commission , 65 F.3d 43 (5th Cir. 1995). In S t. Louis

, we

considered the issue of whether application of a limitations period

that was enacted prior to the filing of suit but subsequent to the

conduct giving rise to the suit was appropriate and permissible.

Id. at 45-47. We held that the shorter, amended limitations period

governed and, consequently, that the action was time barred. Id.

at 48. We reasoned that there was no inequity in applying the new

limitations period because the plaintiff had specific notice of the

amended period. I d. at 44. And although the time within which the

plaintiff had to file was significantly reduced, 1 2 the shortened1993.

13

Id. at 45. See also note 12, s upra

. In S t. Louis

, we also stated

that "true retroactivity" was not really an issue, because the

amended statue of limitations was applied only to the prospective

event of plaintiff’s f iling suit. I d. at 46. We specifically

declined to comment on whether the limitations period were to be

applied to cases that had already been filed at the time of the

amendment. I d. at 46 n.13. Presumably, under our precedents, this

woul d have raised retroactivity concerns. However, we need not

confront that issue with respect to the limitations period in the

case at bar because the Supreme Court’s holding in Lindh forbids

application of the limitations period to cases "pending" on the

AEDPA’s effective date. Lindh , 117 S.Ct. at 2063.

9 period still allowed the plaintiff reasonable time within which to

pursue his claim in court. 13

Although our general rule, as stated in St. Louis

, is to apply

an amended period of limitations to all suits filed after the

effective date of amendment, such application is subject to at

least one restriction. This constraint was expressed by the

Supreme Court in Wilson v. Iseminger

, 22 S.Ct. 573, 575 (1902),

where the Court stated:

"It may be properly conceded that all statutes of

limitation must proceed on t he idea that the party has

full o pportunity afforded him to try his right in the

courts. A statute could not bar the existing rights of

claimants without affording this opportunity; if it

should attempt to do so, it would not be a statute of

limitations, but an unlawful attempt to extinguish rights

arbitrarily , whatever might be the purport of its

provisions."

The Court went on to state that “[i]t is essentia l that such

statutes allow a reasonable time after they take effect for the

commencement of suits upon existing causes of action." I d. at 575.14

It should be noted that we are speaking in gener al terms. The

limitations provision does contain certain exceptions to the oneyear period. However, these exceptions are relatively narrow and

likely would not be of any aid to the majority of potential habeas

petitioners.

15

Although it might be argued that this principle is one of

constitutional dimensions, we emphasize that we apply it here as a

jurisprudential rule of statutory construction, and do not address

the question of whether the provision would be constitutional if

otherwise applied.

16

As noted above, we have been unable to discern any specific

legislative intent as to the temporal application of the Act’s

limitations period. We agree with the Tenth Circuit that "there is

no indication Congress intended to foreclose prisoners who had no

prior notice of the new limitations period from bringing their §

2255 motions" immediately upon the AEDPA’s enactment. United States

v. Simmonds

, 111 F.3d 737, 745 (10th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed

both the statute and its legislative history and found no evidence

that Congress contemplated the immediate application of this

provision to prisoners with out giving them a "reasonable postamendment time to get litigation underway." L indh

, 96 F.3d at 866.

10 If literally and mechanically applied, the statutory provision

here in question would have precisely this prohibited effect: any

prisoner whose judg ment of conviction had become final more than

one year prior to the enactment of the AEDPA would have been barred

from seeking collateral relief as of the moment the Act was signed

into law. 14 Accordingly, such a construction would run afoul of the

"essential" principle requiring that a "reasonable time" be allowed

before the courthouse doors are thus retroactively shut upon a

claim. 15 In the absence of any indication that Congress intended

the limitations period to apply i n such a harsh manner, 1 6 we join

the majority of circuits in holding that prisoners must be accorded17

See, e.g., United States v. Simmonds

, 111 F.3d 737, 745-46 (10th

Cir. 199 7); L indh v. Murphy

, 96 F.3d 856, 866 (7th Cir. 1996),

rev’d on other grounds , 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997); Calderon v. United

States District Court for the Central District of California , 128

F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997); Peterson v. Demskie

, 107 F.3d 92,

93 (2d Cir. 1997).

18

See Peterson v. Demskie , 107 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997), where the

court s tated that "[i]n circumstances like Peterson’s, where a

state prisoner has had several years to contemplate bringing a

fede ral habeas corpus petition, we see no need to accord a full

year after the effective date of the AEDPA." I d. at 93. The court

went on to say that "[a]t the same time, we do not think that the

alternative of a ‘reasonable time’ shoul d be applied with undue

rigor." Id.

11 a reasonable time after the AEDPA’s effective date within which to

file petitions for collateral relief under section 2255. 17

We next turn to the question of what constitutes a "reasonable

time" in this context. The majority of circuits that have

addressed this question have adopted the bright-line rule that one

year, running from the effective date of the AEDPA, constitutes a

reasonable time. The Second Circuit, in contrast, has adopted an

ad hoc approach to d etermining whether a particular petitioner

filed within a reason able time. 1 8 In determining what amount of

time should be deemed "reasonable" under the law of this Circuit,

we apply

—— in the particular circumstance of the AEDPA’s one-year

limitation period

—— a rule of statutory construction that has been

proposed for the resolution of such an issue. One of the earliest

discussions of this rule is found in the case of Culbreth v.

Downing , 28 S.E. 294 (N.C. 1897), where the court determined that12

an amended statute of limitat ions did not provide claimants a

reasonable time within which to protect their rights, and

consequently was faced with the same question that we must now

resolve. In Culbreth , the court reasoned that an ad hoc approach

was not appropriate, stating that:

"This rule leaves open the question in each case, what is

a reasonable time? And that is objectionable because it

is attended with uncertaint y in the minds of litigants

and the profession. We therefore hold that a reasonable

time shall be the balance of the time unexpired according

to the law as it stood when the amending act is passed,

provided that it shall never exceed the time allowed by

the new statute." Id. at 296.

We find that, as applied to the AEDPA’s one-year limitation period,

this rule appropriately seeks to protect the reliance interests of

affected parties without contravening the legislative intent

underlying the statute.

This Court applied a similar app roach in H anner v.

Mississippi

, 833 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1987). There, we faced a

situation analogous to that presented in the present case. The

Supreme Court in Wilson v. Garcia

, 105 S.Ct. 1938 (1985), had

c oncluded, as a matter of statutory construction, that the most

appropriate limitations period for all suits brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 was the general period that would be applicable to a

personal injury suit in the particular state where the section 1983

case had been brought. I d. at 1946-48. This had the practical

effect in Mississippi of drastically reducing (fr om six years to

only one year ) the applicable period of limitations for section19

We emphasize here, as we did in Hanner

, that this rule will not

always be the appropriate one. It is for Congress to legislate

limitation periods, and great deference is shown to their authority

in this area when their intent is clear or when the result of

applying the new limitations period is not manifestly unjust.

See Hanner

, 8 33 F.2d at 58 & n.6. Here, as in H anner

, "the oneyear period’s comparative ease of administration, consistency, and

predictability becomes decisive in its f avor over a ‘reasonable

time’ approach." Id. at 58 n.6.

13 1983 claims that were in the nature of a wrongful death tort claim.

Hanner

, 833 F.2d at 58. We understood the Supreme Court precedents

as mandating that the "new statute of limitations should not be

mec hanically applied to bar claims," but rather that "plaintiffs

whose causes of action accrued before any change in the law was

indicated must be afforded a reasonable time within which to bring

their actions." Id. at 57. Thus, we were faced with reconciling

the potential application of the two periods, while according

plaintiffs a "reasonable time." In Hanner , we held that in cases

where the Wilson d ecision had significantly decreased the

applicable limitations period, "the appropriate limitations period

shall be either (1) the longer pre- Wilson period, commencing at the

time the action accrued, or (2) the post- W ilson one-year period,

commencing with the date of the Wilson decision, whichever expires

first." I d. at 59. We conclude that this approach is appropriate

in determining the " reasonable time" to be accorded under the

AEDPA. 19

In the present context, this approach results in a very simple20

At this time we note, but do not address, a problem that has been

recognized by several other courts. The language of section 105 of

the AEDPA s tates that the one-year limitations period shall run

from "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final."

110 Stat. 1220. It is unclear whether this date should be

construed as the date that judgment issues from the highest court

to hear the case, or whether it should be inte rpreted as the

expiration of the time for seeking any further review. S ee United

States v. Calderon

, 128 F.3d 1283, 128 6 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997). As

the case before us does not require resolution of this question, we

leave it for ano ther day. We also note here that our holding in

this case in no way affects the power of district courts to dismiss

petitions for collateral relief on the basis of unreasonab le and

prejudicial delay under Rule 9(a).

14 outcome. Because there was no set time limit for seeking postconviction relief before the AEDPA was enacted, the one-year AEDPA

limitations period will always be the shorter of the two

potentially applicable periods. Consequently, application of this

approach results in the holding that petitioners attacking

convictions or se ntences which became final prior to the AEDPA’s

effective date will be accorded the one-year post-AEDPA period,

commencing on the Act’s effective date, within which to file for

section 2255 re lief. We thus join the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth

Circuits in holding that one year, commencing on April 24, 1996,

presumptively constitutes a reasonable time for those prisoners

whose convictions had become final prior to the enactment of the

AEDPA to file for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 20 Because Flores

filed his motion on August 19, 1996, his motion is timely, and we

proceed to discuss its merits.

In his extensive motion and supplementary plea dings, Flores21

Flores also claims that the failure to provide e xculpatory

information that gives rise to his Brady claim also violated the

Jenks Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3500. We find no support in the record or

in Flores’ motion for the claim that the government improperly

withheld evidence and therefore do not treat the Jenks Act claim

separately.

22

Flores also claims that the district judge should have recused

himself due to bias. Flores, however, points to no substantial

evidence supporting this claim, and upon review of the entire

record, this Court is unable to find any.

15 makes numerous and varied assertions of error. In light of Flores’

pro se status, we have construed his claims generously, and find

that his pleading s are fairly summarized as alleging that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel, that "outrageous

government cond uct" prejudiced his trial, that the prosecution

failed to divulge evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland

, 83

S.Ct. 1194 (1963), 21 that the trial court judge made improper

remarks to the jury, 22 and that the jury charge i n his trial was

unconstitutional.

With respect to his claim of ineffectiv e assistance of

counsel, Flores fails to make particu larized allegations or to

identify probative eviden ce in the record tending to support his

allegations. Having reviewed the record, we find no evidence

tending to support Flores’ claim, and accordingly find it to be

fatally conclusory and without merit. Flores bases his Jenks Act

and Brady claims primarily on the failure of the government to

reveal that one of their witnesse s was possibly subject to23

Moreover, most of Flores’ claims are procedurally barred and there

has been no showing of cause for the procedural default or that

manifest injustice would result from the bar.

We note that in the Certificate of Appealability, we granted

appeal both on the statute of limitations issue resolved above, as

well as on the issue of whether the district court sufficiently

stated its findings of fact and conclusions of law in granting

summary judgment. After having reviewed the record, and in

particular Flores’ several motions and the government’s responses,

we conclude that it is clear from the record that the district

court did not err in granting the government’s motion for summary

judgment. Although, as we have stated repeatedly, in denying

section 2255 motions, district courts should state the findings and

conclusions upon which their rulings are based, see United States

v. Daly

, 823 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 1987), in this case Flores’

motion did not raise any legal or factual issues that should long

have detained a district court. However, we do note that in most

cases dist rict courts should give specific reasons for their

rulings on such motions because e xplanation of their rulings is

16 deportation due to a prior criminal conviction, asserting that this

information could have been used to impeach the witness. Flores,

h owever, has failed to point to anything indicating that t his

information was in the possession of the prosecution. In addition,

it appears that the information Flores complains was suppressed by

the government was at least partially developed during crossexamination. Finally, with respect to his claims of "outrageous

g overnment conduct," improper remarks made by the judge, and

unconstitutional jury instructions, we have reviewed the record for

evidence supporting these allegations, and find none.

In sum, upon reviewing the entire record, we find, as did the

court below, that to the extent that Flores’ allegations state

cognizable grounds for relief, his claims are conclusory and wholly

unsupported by any probative evidence or affidavits in the record. 23always helpful, and occasionally indispensable, to appellate

review. I d. In the case at bar, the district court’s rather terse

opinion suffices to allow adequate appellate review, and a remand

for a fuller explanation would be pointless.

17 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Flores has not presented to

this Court any basis upon which we could conclude that the district

court erred in granting t he government’s motion for summary

judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.