FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 86 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -0 02 28 -ODE, 1: 03 -cr- 00 49 3- ODE-AJB- 16 SABAS J AIMES ENRIQUES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 2, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, KRAVITCH an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Sab as Enri qu es , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t
co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e, se t-a si de or c orrecthi sse nt en ce. On J ul y 18 , 20 07 , Enri qu es ’s un de rlyin g c on vi ct io ns fordru g tra ffi ck in g a ndm on ey

lau nd eri ng be cam e fi na l. ButEnri qu es di d n otsubm ithi s 1 § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o the di st ric t co urt u nt il Janua ry 20 , 20 09
. Enri qu es arg ue d t ha t

2 th e m ot io n was ti m el y

be cau se alt ho ug h i t was fil edou ts id e th e o ne -y ear t im e li mit , th is pe rio d was to ll edby gov ern m en ta l i m pe di m en ts th atwere b ey on d h is
co nt ro l. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t h is m ot io n was ti m e-b arre d, b utis su eda Cert ifi cat e o f App eal ib il ity (COA) o n t he fol lo win g t wo que st io ns : (1 ) Did th e st atut e of li m it at io ns fo r Mo va nt ’s m ot io n to va cat e be gi n to run u nd er 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (f)(2 ) at so m e ti m e aft er Ju ly 18 , 20 0 7 , w h e n Mo va nt ’s co nv ic ti on be cam e fin al on di re c t ap pe al , thus m ak in g th e m ot io n u nt im el y ? (2 ) Doe s the do ctrin e o f equi tabl e to ll in g app ly here, an d, i f so , is Mo va nt ’s m ot io n t o v acat e ti m el y as ares ul t? Inhi s i ni ti al bri ef, Enr ique s ar gu es th e m eri ts of h is cla im s, s pe ci fic al ly tha t (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredwheniten ha nc edhi s s en te nc e fo r th e p res en ce o f a

This court af

firmed Enriques’s convic tions on April 19, 2007. United States v. Garc ia- 1 Jaimes , 484 F.3d 1311, 1321 ( 11th Cir. 2007). His convictions beca me final onc e the 90- day period to file a

petition for a writ of certiorari on direc t appea l closed. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) establishes a one-year limit ations period for

§ 2255 motions. 2 This limi tation period runs fr om the latest of, inter alia , (1) the date on which the judgment of convic tion becomes fina l; [ or] (2) t h e d at e o n wh i ch t h e i mp ed i m en t t o m aking a motion cre at ed b y g overnme ntal action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is remove d, if the movant was preve nted from maki n g a m o t i o n by such g overnme ntal action. 2fir earm

du rin g the co m

m is si on of t he off

en se , and(2) hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e h is cla ss ifi cat io n a ndpre se ntm it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Enri qu es do es no t ra is e an y arg um en t re ga rd in g t he ti m el in es s o f hi s § 22 55 inhi s in it ia l b rie f, al th ou gh he bri efl y ad dr es se s i t i n h is rep ly brie f. In a n app eal of an u ns uc ces sf ul § 2 25 5 m ot io n, the sco pe of o urrev ie w is li mit edto th e is su es sp eci fie d b y th e COA . Murra

y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 14 5 F .3d 12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Altho ug h pr o s e pl ead in gs are co ns tru edm or e li be ral ly than tho se fil edby cou ns el , Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), is su es no t ar gu edby a pr o s e li ti ga ntinhi s i ni ti al bri ef ar e de em edwaiv ed
. Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Add it io na ll y , we do no t ad dr es s ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a pr o s e li ti ga nt ’s rep ly brie f. Id. Here, the subs tant iv e arg um en ts Enri qu es m ak es reg ard in g e rro rs at
se nt en ci ng an d h is di rectap pe al are b ey on d t he sco pe of t he COA an d, thu s, n ot pr op erl y be fo re u s. Furth erm or e, Enri qu es do es no t m ak e an y arg um en t re la ti ng to th e COA in hi s i ni ti al bri ef; th e is su e o f ti m el in es s i s fi rs t ra is edinhi s re pl y bri ef. As a re su lt , Enri qu es ha s wai ve d t he di sp os it iv e is su es inth is ap pe al
. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Enr ique s’s § 22 55 m ot io n
as un ti m el y .
3AFFIRMED
.

4