## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1254 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K HAL ED O BEID , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 02 CR 038-2

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2012

— D ECI DE D F EB RU ARY 22, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d W OO D a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. I n e x c hange f orhi s co oper ati on w i th the go vernm ent, Kh al ed Obei d i s s er vi ng a federa l se n te n c e that i s a t l eas t 4 5% sho rt erthan i t would have b e e n h a d h e b e e n s e n t e n c e d w i th i n th e r a n g e r e c o mm ended by the U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. H e b elie ve s, h ow ev er , th at h e i s en tit led to an ad d iti onal24

- m onth r educti on, bas ed not on hi s o w n coo pera-2 N o. 12

- 1254 ti on, but on that o fhi s i denti calt w in brother, Kh al don Esaw i
. The dist ri ct cour t concl ud ed that Obei d w as n ot so e nt i tl ed, a nd w e ag r ee , tho ugh fo ra di ffer en t r ea so n. The properpro ceduralve hi cl e fo r Obei d’s cl ai m i s no t, a s Ob e i d, the g o v e r nme nt, a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur t a l la pparently a ssum ed, a m oti on to co m pel under F edera l Rule ofCri m i nalPro cedure 3 5( b)

. I t i s instea d a m oti on und er 28 U
. S. C. § 2255
. A l though w e fi nd th at rel i ef f or O b eid is not bar re d fo r l ack ofper m i ssi on t o fi l e a su cc es si ve mot i o n, i t is una va i l ab l e f o ra no th err ea so n: his m oti on was fi l ed bey ond the t i m e per m i tte d by S e c t i o n 2 2 5 5 ( f ) a nd thu s wa s p r o pe r l y di s mi s s e d.

I O v e r1 0 y e a r s a g o , O b e i d a n d h i s t wi n b r o th e rE s a wi w er e ind i cted al on g w i th m or e than 10 othe rs f or th eir in vo lve m en t in a c o n s p i r a c y t o s m u gg le pseudoephed rine tabl ets from Canada i nto the Unite d St at es ; th e p ills w er e u ltim at ely d es tin ed t o b e u se d in M ex ico for m et h am p h et am in e p ro d u c tio n . In all, O b eid and Es awis m ug g l ed o ve r2 15 mil l i o n ps eu do eph edr i ne tabl ets i nto thi s co untry between 20 01 an d t hei r i nd i ctm en t in 2 0 02 . Th e b ro th er s w er e a lso inv olv ed in m oneyl aund er i ng r el ate d to thei r sm uggl i ng sc hem e. I n 2 004 O bei d a nd Es awie ac h pl ea ded g ui l tyt o dr ug p os se ss ion an d m on ey lau n d er in g. T h eir su b st an tia lly i den ti ca lpl eaa gr ee m en ts c o nt empl at ed th ats en te nc i ng w oul d be defer re d w hi l e the br othe rs as si ste d the g over nm ent with its o ngoing invest i gat i on. In exchange f orthatas sis ta n ce, the gov ernm ent pr om i sed to se ekN o. 12

- 1254 3

a do wnwa r d de pa r tur e f o r e a c h b r o the r un de r Se cti on 5 K 1. 1 o fthe gui del i nes. O b e i d a n d E s a wiwe r e b o th s e n t e nc e d i n 2 0 0 6
. At Ob e i d’ s s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ng, the g o v e r nme nt, as p r o mi s e d, m o ve d f o ra b el o w -guide l i ne s se nt en ce . The Ass i st an t U
. S. A tto rneynot ed thatm uch ofthe coo perat i on the g ove rnm ent w as at tr ibuti ng to Obei d actual l y had been provi ded byEs aw i. The A U SA exp l ai ned that b e c a u s e th e b r o t he r s p o s s e s s e d mo r e o rl e s s th e s a me in for m a t i o n , i t w a s o f t e n u n n e c e s s a r y t o s o licit as si st an ce fr o m b o tho fthe m , b uttha t the g o ve r nm en t w as no ne th eles s w ill ing to cred it each w ith th e othe r’s coo perat ive eff or ts. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted the go vernm en t’ s m o ti o n a nd s en te nc ed Obe i d t o 1 78 months i n pr i son , w hi chr epr es en te d a 4 5% di sc o untfr o m the l ow end o fthe gui del i nes r ange. I n J an ua r y 20 06 , se ve r al m o nths be f o r e Obe i d’ s se ntencing, the gov er nm ent enter ed i nto a s up ple m ental ple a a gr eem ent wit h E sawi i n w hi ch i t a gr eed to se ek a fu rt h er red u c tio n in E sa w i’s s en te n c e p u rs u an t t o R u le 35(b) i n exchange f orhi s co nti nuing coo perat i on. A s a re sul t, i n 200 8 Esawi re c eive d an additi onal24

- m onth senten c e reducti on. Obei d knew o fthi s s up ple m ental ag re em en t b y th e t i m e o f h is s en te n c in g, bu t s in c e it r el at ed to futur e co o per at i o n h e had n o w ayo fkno wi ng whethe rthe g o ve r nm en t woul d e ve ntua l l y make the an tic ip at ed m ot ion or h ow m u c h of a re d u c t i o n it w oul d seek

. Obei d al so knew that he ha d not e nter ed i nt o a c o m par ab l e ag r eem en t. Al th o ugh the g o ve r nm en t sign ale d at th e sen te n c in g he ar in g th at it w o u ld4 N o. 12

- 1254 be o pen t o ne g o ti at i nga s uppl ement ala g r ee m en t w ith Obei d i fhe were wil l i ng to pro vi de additi onal ass i sta nce, O b eid neve r att em pted to nego ti ate such a n ag r ee m en t o rt o pr o vi de fur th er c ooper at i o n. Ra th er, he spe ntthe ne xts ev er aly ea r s at te m ptingt o undo his se ntence
. W e di sm i sse d his in itialappealo fhi s s entence i n 200 7 o n the grou n d thati t v i ol ate d the appel l ate w aiv er in h is p lea ag re em en t. U nite d S ta te s v. O be id, 25 6 F. A pp ’ x 816 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Obei d l ate r m ov ed f or re l i efunder 28 U

. S. C. § 2 255, al l eging ineffecti ve assistan ce of coun sel. W e d en ied O beid ’s requ est for a c er tific at e o f ap p ea lab ility from th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n d en yin g re lief

. O beid v. U nited Sta tes , N o. 08

- 2361 (7th C ir. De c. 12, 2008). O n J uly 15, 2010 , O beid retu rned to th e d istri ct c ou rt w i th a fi l i ng tha t he sty l ed a “ m oti on t o com pel the gov er nm ent t o see k a n additi onal r educ t i on under [ Rule 35(b )]
. ” In the m oti on, Obei d al l ege d that the go ver n m en t h ad p ro m ise d to tre at h im an d E s a w i id en tic ally f orpurposes o fcr edi ti ng the i r coo pe ra ti on, and that th e g o vernm en t was v i o l at i ngtha t pr o m i se b y r efus i ng to se ek th e s am e R u le 3 5(b ) red u c tio n for O b e i d th at it h ad fo r Esaw ibac k in 200 8. The di str i ct c ourthel d an evi denti ar y hea ring, afterwh i ch i t found that nei ther Obe i d’ s pl eaa g r ee m en t no rs ta te m en ts made at hi s se ntencing hea ring es tabl i shed that the g ove rnm ent had ev er p ro m ise d to co n tin u e t o c re d it O b eid w ith h is bro ther ’ s co oper ati on a fter s entencing. The di str i ct cour t furtherco nclu d ed thatthe gov er nm ent’ s e xplanati ons f orwh y i t cho se to see k future coo perat i on fro m E sa w i on ly

— na m ely, that Es aw i ha d a bet t e r m em oryN o. 12

- 1254 5 and that deal i ng with Obei d w as “al m osti m p os sibl e”

— w er e r ati onal l y r el ate d to i ts l egi ti m ate int erest in obtainin g coop eration. A ccord ingly, the d istri ct cou rt de ni e d the mo t i o n. T hi s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

II A O b eid , th e go ve rn m en t, an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtall tr eat ed Obe id ’s m oti on a s o ne pro perl y fi l ed und er F ede r alRul e o fCr i m i na lPr o ce dur e 35(b)

. Thi s was i ncor re ct. Rule 35 ( b) pro vi des a m echanism f orthe gove r nm ent to see k a r educti on in a defendant’s se ntence b a s e d o n h i s s u b s t a n ti al c o o p e r a t i o n ; i tn o wh e r e a l l o ws a defendant t o f or ce the go vernm ent t o see k a Rule 35 ( b) r edu ct i o n o n h i s behal f

. Nev er th el es s, i fthe g o ve r nm en t re fu se s t o follo w t h r o u gh ona p ro m ise to file a Rul e 3 5( b) m ot ion , a nd thatr efusali s “ base d on an unconsti tuti onalm oti ve” ori s “ not ra ti onal l y r el ate d to any l egi ti m at e G ove rnm ent e nd , ” Wa de v . U nited Sta tes , 50 4 U.S
. 18 1, 18 5-8 6 ( 1992 ) , the defe nd ant i s no t wi th o uto ppo r tu ni ty f o rr edr es s. Ra th er, a s we e xpl aine d i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ri ch ar ds on , 55 8 F
. 3d 680 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , the defen dan t m ayc ha l l en g e th e g o ve r nm en t’s refu sa l in a m ot ion u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 22 55
. Id. at 681- 82. W e wil lther ef or e t re at Obei d’s fil i ng as such a m o ti o n. Bec a us e Ob e i d a l r e a dyh a s o ne S e c t i o n 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n to hi s nam e, hi s new fi l i ng m ust cl earthe j urisd icti onal hurdle i m posed by the A nti ter ro ri sm an d Effecti ve6 N o. 12

- 1254 Death Penal ty A ct ( A ED PA )
. That s tatute pr ovi des that a dist ri ct cour t m ay not enter tain a “se cond orsu c c essi ve ” m o ti o n fi l ed bya federal p r i so ne runl es s th e pri sone r has fi rs t obtained authorizat i on t o fi l e fro m the c ourto fappeal s. §§ 22 44( a) ; 22 55( h); se e a l so N uñ ez v. U nited Sta tes , 96 F .3d 99 0, 99 1 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ). Ob eid d id n o t a s k th is c ou rtfor its p er m iss ion to file h is m oti on, and so i fi t qual ifies as “succes si ve, ” the di str i ct c ou rtlac ke d j u ris d ict ion to ad j u d ica te it. N uñez , 96 F
. 3d at9 91
. W e add th att o the e xt en t Obe i d i s no w as k i ng for ou r p er m iss io n t o file a su c c es siv e m ot ion, see , e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 3 98 F
. 3d 97 8, 9 81 ( 7th Ci r . 2 005 ) , the an sw er m u stbe n o. T h e a rg u m en ts h e p re se n te d in h is “Rul e 35 ( b) ” m otion f al lunde rne i th ero fAEDPA ’ s ex ception s to the pr ohibi ti on o n succes si ve m oti ons. S ee § 2 255( h) ( perm i tting succe ssi ve m oti ons onl y when th ey rais e c l a im s b as ed on eith er n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev idence thates tabl i shes the pet i ti oner ’ s innocence, o r “a new r ule o fco n st i tuti onall aw [ ] m ade r etr oac ti ve to case s on collateral review by the Sup rem e C ou rt”). O beid can pro c e ed w ith th is case, th erefore, only i f, und erthe com ple x rul es that have evo l ved since A ED PA ’ s pass age , hi s m oti on ca nnot be char acte ri zed as t r ul y s ucc es si ve . In th e co nt ex t o fdi sc us singpe ti ti o ns fi l ed unde r2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4, whi cha ppl i es t o perso ns inst at e c u st o d y , th e Su p re m e C ou rth as h eld rep ea te d ly th at n otev er y p et itio n “filed se c on d or s u c c e s siv ely i n t i me” t o a p r i o rp e t i t i o n c o un t s a s “ s e c o nd o rs uccessi ve, ” “ eve n w hen the l ate r fi l i ngs a dd re ss a [ ] j ud gm en t a lre ad y c h alle n ge d in a p rior § 2 2 5 4 a p p lica tio n .”N o. 12

- 1254 7 Pane t t iv. Q uar t e r m an , 55 1 U.S
. 93 0, 94 4 ( 2007 ); s ee al so M agwo o d v
. Pat t e rs on , 130 S. Ct
. 2788, 2796 (2011) (“[ I ]t i s wel lse ttl ed that the p h ra se does not si m plyr efe[ r] to all § 22 54 ap p lica tio n s filed se c on d o r s u c c es siv ely in ti m e. ”) ( al tera tio ns i n or i gi nal ) ( i nter nalquotat i on m arks om itte d ). O n th is point, there is no m aterial d if

fer en ce b etwee n m o ti o ns unde rS ec ti o n 2 25 5 an d p et itio ns under S ecti on 2 254, and so we have no hesi tati on in apply i ng tho se hol dings to Obei d’s case . The Co ur t’ s dec i si on in P anett i sheds l i ght o n w hen a p et itio n or m ot ion th at is n u m er ica lly se c on d sh ou ld al so be s ubj ect to the s peci alr ule s forsucce ssi ve fili ngs. Th e r e , a de a th ro w i nma t e wh o p r e v i o us l y h a d fi l e d a federa lhabea s co rpus peti ti on r ai si ng va ri ous i ssues ab o uthi s tr i ala nd s en te nc e so ughtt o b r i nga s ec o nd p e t i t i o n i n wh i c h h e a s s e r t e d t h a th e wa s me n t a l l y i n c o mp eten t a n d thu s cou ld n ot be ex ecu ted un d er For d v
. Wai nwr ight, 477U .S. 39 9 (1 98 6). 55 1 U .S. at 9 37

- 3 8. A lthough the st at e co nceded that For d cl ai m s ar e g en erall y un ripe u nt ilw ellafte r A E D PA ’s stand ard one- yea r l i m i tat i on per i od f orfi l i ng an i ni ti alpeti ti on h as run (because the pri sone r cannot ra i se a For d claim un ti lhi s ex ec ut i o n i s i m m i ne nt ) , i t ar g ue d tha t Pa ne tti ’s seco nd peti ti on was neve rthel ess “sec ond orsucce ssi ve” t o h i s f i rs t a n d th u s b ar re d by Sec tio n 22 44 (b ). Id. at 94 2- 43
. The Co ur t r ej ec te d th i s r ea di ng o f th e l aw, ho l di ng i ns t e a d tha ta p e t i t i o n r a i si nga p r e v i o us l y u nr i pe For d cl ai m i s no t s eco nd o r succes si ve to a pri orpeti ti on and thus do es notf al lwithi n the pu rv i ew o fS ecti on 22 44 (b ). Id. a t 9 4 7
. I n s o h o l d i n g, th e C o u r t n o t ed th att he phr as e “s ec o nd o rs ucc es si ve ” “t ak es i ts ful lmean i ng8 N o. 12

- 1254 fr o m [ th e Co ur t’ s] cas e l aw, i nc l udi ngdeci si o ns pr eda ting the e nactm ent o f[ A ED PA ]
. ” Id. at94 3- 44. T h e C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n i n P anett i hi nged on the f act that the For d cl ai m was not yetava ilab le w hen Panett i b ro u gh t h is firs t fe d er al p et itio n . Id. at94 3- 47. A num ber o fo u r s ist er circ u its h av e g en er aliz ed th is log ic t o a p p ly to othe r types ofse cond-in -tim e pet i ti ons that w er e no t rip e a t t h e t im e o f th e i n i t i al p et itio n . See , e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. B uen rostro , 63 8 F. 3d 720, 72 5 ( 9th Ci r. 20 11) ( “Pri so n ers m ay fi l e s eco nd

- i n-t i m e pet i ti ons base d on ev en ts th at d o no t o cc urunt i la fi r stpe ti ti o n i s co ncl ud ed.

. . . [ S] uch cl aim s w er e not ri pe f oradj ud i cati on a t the co n c lu si on o fthe pri sone r’ s fi rs t federa l h ab ea s p ro c ee d in g.” (cit in g c as es )); Jo hn son v. W yn der, 40 8 F. A p p ’x 6 16, 61 9 ( 3d Cir

. 20 10) ( “W e s ee no r eas on t o avoi d app l yi ng P anett i i n the c o nt e xt o f o the r ty pes o f c laim s t h at rip en on ly a fte r an init ial fed er al habe as p et itio n h as be en filed .”); In re Jon es , 6 5 2 F
. 3 d 6 0 3 , 60 5 ( 6th Ci r. 20 10) ( peti ti on r ai si ng ex p o s t f ac t o cl ai m bas ed on am e nd men t s t o s t a t e l a w tha to c c ur r e d a ft e rfi rs t p et itio n w as n otse c on d or s u c c es s i ve ); Le al Gar ci a v. Q ua rterm an , 573 F.3d 214 , 222-24 (5th C ir. 2009) (“I f, ho wev er, the pur po r te d de fec t did no t ar i se , o rthe cl ai m di d no t r i pen, unt i l afte r th e co nc l usion of th e previ ous pet i ti on, the l ate r peti tion based on that defect m ay be n on -su c c es siv e.” ); Thom pki ns v. Se cre t ary, D ep’tof C o rr. , 557F.3d 12 57, 126 0-6 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ) (cla im that del ay i n executing p et itio ner vi ol ate d the Ei ghth A m endm ent was notse cond orsucce ssi ve because t h e d ela y c ou ld n otgiv e ris e t o a co n st itu tio n al c laim u n tili t had o ccurr ed). ( W e no te that ther e i s s om e v ar i a-N o. 12

- 1254 9 t i o n i n th e s e d e c i s i o n s ab o utth e c r i t i c a lt i me . S o me im p ly th at in ord e r t o es cap e the suc cess ive petitions ba r, a cl ai m m ust be unri p e on ly at the t i m e the fi rs t pet i ti on i s f i led, see Johns on , 408 F. A p p ’x at61 9; Jo nes , 65 2 F
. 3d at 605 ( sam e) , w h ile othe rs i nd i cate thatthe cl ai m m ust sti l lbe unri pe w hen the fi rs t pet i ti on i s a dju dic a ted, se e B uen rostro , 638 F. 3d at 72 5; Leal G arci a , 57 3 F
. 3d at 222. A lth ou gh th is d ist in c tio n co u ld be d isp o s i t i ve in c er ta in ca se s, i t m ak es no di ffer en ce t o the ou tco m e he r e, a nd nei ther party com m ented on i t. A ccor dingly, w e le ave re so lu tio n of th is q u es tio n for a n ot h er d ay .) I n ado p t i n gth i s r i p e n e s s r u l e , c o u r t s h a v e b e e n c a r e ful to di st i ng ui shg enui nelyunr i pe cl ai m s ( wher e th e f actualpre dica te that gi ves ri se to the c l ai m h as not yet o c c u rre d ) from th os e in w h ich th e p et itio n er m er ely h a s s om e e x c u se for fa ilin g t o ra ise th e c laim in h is i ni ti alpeti ti on ( such as w hen new l y di sco ver ed evi dence supp or ts a cl ai m thatthe peti ti onerr ecei ved i neffecti ve as s i s t a n c e o fc o u n s e l ) ; o n l y th e f o r me rc l a s s o fp e t i ti o ns esca pes cl ass i fi cati on a s “ seco nd o r su c c ess i ve. ” S ee B u e n rostro , 638 F.3d at72 6; Thom pki ns , 55 7 F
. 3d at 1260
. Ou r pre- P anett ide cisio n in In rePage, 17 0 F
. 3d 659 ( 7th C ir. 19 99 ), offer s a n ex am p le of a c laim th at fits w ith in thi s l att ercat ego ryand thu s was pro perl y r ej ecte d as su cc es si ve . The pe ti ti o ne ri n Pagewas tr yi ng in both pe t i t i o ns t o a t t a c kthe s t a t e ’ s o ri g i na lf a i l ur e t o h o l d a fi tn es s he ar i ng ; he was no t en ti tl ed, we he l d, to a s ec o nd opportu n ity to r ai se that poi nt, ev en tho ugh sta te l aw h a d c h a n g e d i n th e i n t e r i m. 170 F. 3d at 660- 61. The i dea thata m oti on or peti ti on that i s l i ter al l y “ second” mi g htn o tb e s ubj e c tt o the r ul e s o fS e c t i o ns 2 24410 N o. 12

- 1254

a nd 2 2 5 5 ( h) i s no t ne w t o thi s c o ur t
. I n the pa s t, we have ackno w l edged thatcer tain peti ti ons, such a s those dis

m i sse d fo r f ai l ure to p ay a fil i ng fee orto exhaust sta te- cour t r em edi es, do nottrig gerA ED PA ’ s s uccess i vep et itio n ba r. See , e . g. , A lt m an v. B enik, 337 F. 3d 76 4, 766 (7t h C ir. 2 00 3). W e h av e n otye t a p p lied a rip en es s ru le f ordeter m i ni ng wh ethera peti ti on is se cond orsucce ssiv e. C f. Su gg s v. U nited Sta tes , ___F
. 3 d
___, 2 0 1 3 WL 1739 69, * 2 ( 7th Ci r. J an. 17, 20 13) ( sum m ar i zi ng P anett i ); P urv i s v . U nited Sta tes , 66 2 F
. 3d 939, 94 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( consi deri ng wh etherto app ly ri peness pri nci ple s fro m P anett i, but concl ud ing that the cas e was m or e a pp ro pr i at ely r es o l ve d by the pr o ce dur es o ut l ine d i n R hin es v. Weber, 544 U
. S. 269 ( 2005 ))
. Seeing no reas o n to pa rt w ays with o ur s i ste r circuit s, however, we j oi n them i n c o nc l udi ngtha t a pet i ti o n o rmot i o n b as ed o n a c laim th at d id n otbe c om e rip e a n y e a r l i er th an u n til aftert h e ad j ud i cati on o fthe peti ti oner ’ s fi rs t pet i ti on o r m o ti o n i s no t “s ec o nd o rs ucc es si ve ” wi th i n the mean i ng o fS e c t i o n s 2 2 4 4 a n d 2 2 5 5 ( h )
. ( We r e i t e r a te th a twe ex p re ss n o v iew co n c e r n in g c laim s t h atbe c om e rip e in b et w ee n th e filin g a n d ad j u d ica tio n of a firs t p et itio n .) A p p lyin g t h i s p r in c ip le t o O b eid , i t a p p ea rs th at h is Rule 35(b) c lai m bec am e r i pe no e ar l i erthan J une 9, 20 08, w hen the gov ernm ent m ove d fo r a Rul e 3 5( b) r educti on o n b eh al fo fEs awialon e. Ob ei d ha s per si st en tly mai nta i ne d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t pr o m i se d t o t r ea t hi m a nd Es a wie q u a l l y, c r e d i t i n ga l lc o o p e r a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y o ne to the o therand vi ce v er sa. T h e fa ctualpre dica te f or Obe i d’ s cl ai m w as thus no t i n pl ac e unt i lthe g o ve r nm ent v i ol ate d thi s ( supp ose d) pr om i se by see ki ng anN o. 12

- 1254 11 ad d iti ona l sen ten ce red uc tion only for E saw i. Ob eid’s i ni ti al Se cti on 2255 m oti on w as fi l ed on Febru ar y 1 9, 20 08 , a nd de ni ed on Fe br ua r y 2 9, 2 00 8, s ev er almonths bef or e the J une date. A ccor dingly , hi s cur re nt peti ti on w as no t secon d or s u c c e s sive, an d the d istri ct cou rt had j uri sdic ti on t o deci de i t.

B W h ile i m port ant, j uri sdic ti on i s f arfro m the onl y pr oceduralp rere quis i te that Obei d m ust s ati sfy. W e nee d co ns i dero nl y o ne mor e: the r ul es establ i sh i ngwhena m otion un d er Section 225 5 m us t be file d

. Section 225 5(f) i m poses a one- yea r l i m ita ti on per i od thatr uns fro m , as r el ev an t he r e, “the d at e o n whi chthe f ac ts s uppo r ting the c l ai m o r cl ai m s pre sente d coul d h ave been discove re d thro ugh the exer ci se ofdue dil i ge n c e.” H er e, co un s e l f o r Ob e i d ha s r e pr e s e nt e d tha t “ i t wa s r easonab l e forObei d to re m ain u naw ar e o fthe i m pact o f th e s u p p lem en ta l p lea ag re em en t [w ith E sa w i] unti l Junean d [si c] Oc t o b e r o f 20 08 , wh en the Governm ent fi l ed i t s p l e a [ o n E s a wi ’ s b e h a l f ]
. ” ( E mp h a s i s a d d e d

. ) We tak e thi s a s a n acknow l edg m en t that Obei d rea l i zed, o r shoul d h a v e r e a l i z e d, tha tthe g o v e r nme nth a d b r o k en i ts supp ose d prom i se no l ate r than the end of20 08. Obei d’s m oti on, fi l ed on J uly15 , 20 10, c am e al ong at l eas t a ye arand a hal fl ate r and w as thus to o l ate
. F i na l l y, we not e t hat o urpr el i m i na r y r ev i ew o fthe m er i ts str ongl y s ugges ts that Obeid ’s m oti on was doom ed i n any eve nt. Ob eid cannotcl ai m thatthe gov er nm ent v i ol ate d the pro m i ses i t m ade i n the ple a a gr ee-12 N o. 12

- 1254

m en t, f o rthe s i m pl e r ea sontha t no th i ngi n tha t do cum en t a d d re ss ed p os t-s en te n c in g c oo p er at ion . Th e p lain l anguag e o fthe a g r e e men tc o nt r o l s s o l o nga s i ts ter m s a re unam bi guous. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. M onroe, 58 0 F
. 3d 55 2, 55 6 ( 7th Ci r . 20 09 )
. Obe i d’ s pl eaagreement pr o vi ded th at th e g o ve r nm en t woul d m o ve f o ra do wnw ar d dep ar ture fro m the gui del i nes und erS ecti on 5 K 1. 1, an d the g o ve r nm en t di d j us t th at
. The a g r ee m en t i ncl ud ed no a dd i tio n alpro m i ses . N ordoes Obei d prese ntany co m pel l i nge vi den ce tha t th e g o ve r nm en t eve r p ro m i sed thatObei d w oul d rec ei ve add i ti onal cr edi t f o rhi s br o th er ’ s futur e co o per at i o n. Ra th er, the ev i den ce s ho ws tha t Obe i d r ecei ved e xa ct l y whathe ba r g ai ned f o r : a 4 5% r edu ct i o n o ffthe l o w end o fthe sente nci ng guidel i nes r ange. H e was ent i tl ed to no m or e. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

2- 22- 13