r 

! \:( Ji 

ROBERT GABRIEL GUZMAN, § 

§ 

Movant, § 

§ 

vs. § NO. 4:22-CV-151-A 

§ (NO. 4:19-CR-121-A) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

§ 

Respondent. § 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Came on for consideration the motion of Robert Gabriel 

Guzman, movant, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or 

correct sentence by a person in federal custody. The court, 

having considered the motion, the government's amended motion to 

dismiss, the reply, the record, including the record in the 

underlying criminal case, and applicable authorities, finds that 

the motion should be dismissed as untimely. 

I. 

Background 

The record in the underlying criminal case reflects the 

following: 

On April 17, 2019, movant was named in a one-count 

indictment charging him with possession with intent to 

distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable 

amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 62
§§ 841 (a) (1) and (b) (1) (C). CR Doc . 1 11. On May 3, 2019, movant 

entered a plea of guilty. CR Doc. 16. On September 13, 2019, he 

was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 180 months. CR Doc. 

34. He appealed. CR Doc. 36. On September 25, 2020, his 

conviction and sentence were affirmed. United States v. Guzman, 

822 F. App'x 314 (5th Cir. 2020). He did not file a petition for 

writ of certiorari. 

II. 

Limitations 

A one-year period of limitation applies to motions under 

§ 2255. The limitation period runs 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 government 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). Typically, the time begins to run on the date 

the judgment of conviction becomes final. United States v. Thomas, 

1 The "CR Doc._" reference is to the number of the item on the docket in the underlying criminal case, No. 4: 19-

CR-121-A. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 63
203 F.3d 350, 351 (5th Cir. 2000). A criminal judgment becomes 

final when the time for seeking direct appeal expires or when the 

direct appeals have been exhausted. Clay v. United States, 53 7 

U.S. 522, 532 (2003); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 

(1987). 

Equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy available only 

where strict application of the statute of limitations would be 

inequitable. United States v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927, 930 (5th 

Cir. 2000). The doctrine is applied restrictively only in rare 

and exceptional circumstances. In re Wilson, 442 F.3d 872, 875 

(5th Cir. 2006). The movant bears the burden to show that 

equitable tolling should apply. Alexander v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 

626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002). To do so, the movant must show that he 

was pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary 

circumstance stood in his way and prevented the timely filing of 

his motion. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). The 

failure to satisfy the statute of limitations must result from 

factors beyond the movant's control; delays of his own making do 

not meet the test. In re Wilson, 442 F.3d at 875. Equitable 

tolling applies principally where the movant is actively misled 

by the government or is prevented in some extraordinary way from 

asserting his rights. Fierro v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 674, 682 (5th 

Cir. 2002); Patterson, 211 F.3d at 930. Neither excusable 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 64
neglect nor ignorance of the law is sufficient to justify 

equitable tolling. Id. Lack of legal acumen and unfamiliarity 

with legal process are not sufficient justification to toll 

limitations. United States v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 

2008); Alexander v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002). 

III. 

Analysis 

Movant's judgment became final on February 22, 2021, when 

the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari expired.' 

Clay, 537 U.S. at 532. He did not submit his§ 2255 motion for 

filing until February 23, 2022, after the one-year limitations 

period had expired. Doc.' 1 at 13. 

Movant admits that his motion is not timely. Doc. 1 at 12; 

Doc. 2 at 2. He urges that equitable tolling should apply. Id. 

He recognizes that to be entitled to equitable tolling, he must 

show that (1) he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and 

(2) some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and 

prevented timely filing of his motion. Id. His allegations, 

however, do not meet the test. 

2 As the government notes in its amended motion to dismiss, the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari was 

extended to 150 days for a period of time during the pandemic. 3 The "Doc._" reference is to the number of the item on the record in this civil action. 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 65
In support of the contention that he has been diligently 

pursuing his rights, movant notes that he timely filed a notice 

of appeal and since the ruling on appeal, has "attempted to 

study the law as it pertains to Section 2255s [sic] and his case 

in order to submit a timely Section 2255 motion." Doc. 2 at 3. 

He also refers to the motion for extension of time he submitted 

for filing on December 20, 2021, CR Doc. 53. 4 Id. These wholly 

conclusory allegations are insufficient to show the exercise of 

any diligence in pursuing his§ 2255 motion. Rather, he appears 

to have devoted his attention to seeking a delay. 

As for the second prong, that some extraordinary 

circumstance prevented the timely filing of the motion, movant 

refers to the COVID-19 virus and various lockdowns. He admits 

that he had access to the law library from September 25, 2020, 

through January 2021, and from the second week of March 2021 to 

December 1, 2021. He did not have access to the law library 

between December 1 and December 24, 2021, the date the motion 

would have been due but for the Supreme Court extension. Doc. 2 

at 5. He complains that he only had two hours per week to work 

in the law library, but he has not given any reason for the 

court to believe that the limited access actually prevented him 

4 This was the second motion for extension of time that movant filed, See CR Doc. 51. 

5 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 66
from timely filing his motion. Krause v. Thaler, 637 F.3d 558, 

561 (5th Cir. 2011). Ignorance of the law is not enough. Petty, 

530 F.3d at 366; Patterson, 211 F.3d at 930. Movant's mistaken 

belief that he could wait until the last minute to file his 

motion does not entitle him to equitable relief. See Fisher v. 

Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Finally, the court notes that the motion presents only one 

simple ground-that movant's attorney should have objected to the 

firearms enhancement. The ground appears to be frivolous. See CR 

Doc. 20; CR Doc. 43 at 18-19 (reflecting that movant may have 

exchanged a weapon for drugs). In any event, movant has not 

shown that he could not have timely filed his motion had he 

chosen to do so. 

IV. 

Order 

The court ORDERS that the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be, 

and is hereby, dismissed as untimely. 

Pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, Rule ll(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 

Proceedings for the United States District Courts, and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253 (c) (2), for the reasons discussed herein, the court further 

ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, 

denied, as movant has not made a substantial showing of the 

6 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 67
denial of a constitutional right. 

SIGNED April 18, 2022. 

7 

Case 4:22-cv-00151-A Document 9 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 68