Court Opinion

ID: 9493043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:56:27.794257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:37.003466
License: Public Domain

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Prior to the enactment of the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132,110 Stat. 1214, a federal prisoner could file a § 2255 motion “at any time.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (former version). The current version of § 2255 imposes a one-year period of limitation and provides that this period of limitation shall run from the latest of four specified dates. One of those dates is “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1). This is the language at issue in this case, and the rub in this case, as recognized by the majority, see ante at 838-39, is that § 2255 does not define when a judgment of conviction becomes “final” for purposes of starting the period of limitation.
Four circuits have squarely addressed the issue of when a conviction becomes “final” for purposes of § 2255. The Seventh Circuit has held that, at least in a case in which the federal prisoner does not seek further review of his conviction beyond the court of appeals, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the highest court to consider the case issues its mandate. See Gendron v. United States, 154 F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1758, 143 L.Ed.2d 790 (1999). The Seventh Circuit’s holding in Gendron is tied to the textual difference between § 2244(d)(1)(A), which is applicable to collateral review of state court convictions, and § 2255, which is applicable to collateral review of federal court convictions. Just as § 2255 provides a one-year period of limitation, so too does § 2244(d)(1), and § 2244(d)(1) provides that this period of limitation shall run from the latest of four specified dates. One of those dates is “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). In Gendron, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that “[wjhere Congress includes particular language in one section of an act but omits it in another section of the same act, it is presumed that Congress intended to exclude the language, and the language will not be implied where it has been excluded.” 154 F.3d at 674.1 Noting that Congress included the phrase “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” in § 2244(d)(1)(A) but omitted the phrase from § 2255(1), the Gendron court concluded that the date on which a judgment *843of conviction becomes final must mean something different under § 2255(1) than it does under § 2244(d)(1)(A). See Gen-dron, 154 F.3d at 674. Based on this conclusion, the Gendron court held that under § 2255(1) a judgment of conviction becomes final when the court of appeals issues its mandate. See Gendron, 154 F.3d at 674.
In contrast to Gendron, the Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits take the view that a judgment of conviction becomes final under § 2255(1) when a federal prisoner’s options for further direct review are foreclosed, rather than when the highest court to consider the case issues its judgment. Thus, those courts hold that the judgment of conviction becomes final on the later of (1) the date on which the Supreme Court affirms the conviction and sentence on the merits or denies the federal prisoner’s timely filed petition for writ of certiorari, or (2) the date on which the federal prisoner’s time for filing a timely petition for writ of certiorari expires. See United States v. Gamble, 208 F.3d 536 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274, 1279 (10th Cir.2000); Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 577 (3d Cir.1999).
In Kapral, the Third Circuit rejected the reasoning of Gendron, concluding that longstanding principles of finality in the collateral review context outweigh any inference that could be drawn from the textual difference between § 2241(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1). See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 570-77. The Third Circuit also criticized the Gendron court for not taking 28 U.S.C. § 2263 into account when trying to divine what Congress intended in § 2255(1).2 See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 576-77. Section 2263 deals with certain habeas petitions for collateral review of state court convictions involving the death penalty. Section 2263(a) provides that a federal habeas petition must be filed within 180 days “after final State court affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” The Third Circuit reasoned that
Congress’s use of “State court” to modify the well-settled meaning of direct review (which includes the right to seek review in the Supreme Court), provides strong support for the conclusion that the limitations periods under § 2244 and § 2255 — which lack an analogous modifier — run from the conclusion of Supreme Court review.
Kapral, 166 F.3d at 576. The Third Circuit also noted that both § 2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1) explicitly tie the applicable period of limitation to the “finality” of a conviction, rather than an “affirmance” of that conviction, as does § 2263. See Ka-pral, 166 F.3d at 576. The Third Circuit also observed that § 2263 provides that the period of limitation is “tolled” by the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari, see 28 U.S.C. § 2263(b)(1). See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 576. Tolling is necessary under that section because the period of limitation starts to run before the time period for Supreme Court certiorari review begins. See id. The Third Circuit reasoned that the absence of any analogous tolling provision for Supreme Court review in either § 2244 or § 2255 strongly suggests that Congress intended for the limitation provisions contained therein to begin after the time for certiorari review expired. See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 577.
*844The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Burch follows the reasoning of the Third Circuit’s decision in Kapral. Of note, the court in Burch heavily criticized the Gendron court’s invocation of the Russello presumption. The Burch court first noted that the presumption only is applicable in cases where the statute at issue is carefully drafted, which the AEDPA is not. See 202 F.3d at 1277. The court also noted that, “[h]ad the Gendron court truly applied the Russello principle and taken it to its logical conclusion, it would have held that a judgment of conviction is final for purposes of § 2255 when the trial court enters the judgment of conviction on the docket.” Burch, 202 F.3d at 1278.3
From the above discussion, it seems clear that, when a federal prisoner appeals his conviction to the court of appeals, the phrase “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final” contained in § 2255(1) is ambiguous, as it is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations. On the one hand, the phrase may mean the date on which the last process of direct appeal occurs. See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 577 (Ali-to, J., concurring). On the other hand, the phrase “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final” reasonably may be interpreted to mean the date on which the conviction is no longer subject to reversal by means of the process of direct appeal. See id.
These two reasonable interpretations produce the same results except when a federal prisoner decides not to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. As Judge Alito explained in Kapral,
[tjhese two reasonable interpretations produce the same results in those cases in which the defendant exhausts the process of direct review, ie., appeals to the court of appeals and then petitions for a writ of certiorari. In those cases, the last step in the process of direct appeal occurs at the same time when the defendant’s conviction becomes immune from reversal on direct appeal, ie., when the Supreme Court denies certiorari or, if certiorari is granted, when the Supreme Court hands down its decision on the merits. These two interpretations, however, produce different results in those cases, such as this case and Gendron, in which the defendant does not exhaust the direct-review process. In cases like this one and Gendron, the last step in the process of direct appeal occurs when the court of appeals’ judgment is entered, but the judgment of conviction does not become immune from reversal through the process of direct appeal until the time for petitioning for certiorari expired — generally 90 days after the entry of the court of appeals’ judgment. See Supreme Court Rule 13.1. Thus, in those cases in which a defendant appeals to the court of appeals but does not seek certiorari, the first interpretation will generally give the defendant one year from the entry of judgment to file a § 2255 motion, whereas the second interpretation will generally give the defendant 15 months from the entry of the court of appeals’ judgment to file that motion.
Kapral, 166 F.3d at 577-78 (Alito, J., concurring).
Whenever we are confronted with a situation in which we must accept one reasonable interpretation of a statute and reject another, the decision is exceedingly difficult. Such is the case here. Compounding the difficulty of the decision in this case is the absence of legislative history surrounding the enactment of § 2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1). However, I am more persuaded by the Kapral, Burch, and Gamble courts’ analyses of the relevant secondary tools of statutory interpretation than I am by the reasoning of the majority and Gendron. Accordingly, I would hold that, for purposes of § 2255(1), *845if a federal prisoner does not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court after his direct appeal, the one-year period of limitation begins to run when the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari expires.
In its opinion, the majority relies on two main points to support its interpretation of § 2255(1). First, the majority relies on the fact that § 2255(1) refers to “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final,” whereas § 2244(d)(1)(A) refers to “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” See ante at 839-40. According to the majority, the absence of the phrase “the expiration of the time for seeking such review” in § 2255(1) “provides a powerful negative inference that the start of its one-year period of limitation is not delayed until the expiration of the period in which a federal defendant could have petitioned for certiorari, but did not.” Ante at 840.
Unlike the majority, I fail to see the “powerful negative inference.” To begin with, the statutory text of § 2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1) strongly suggests that the difference in language did not result from a careful drafting choice.4 Indeed, a careful draftsman would have realized that, just as it was necessary in § 2244(d)(1)(A) to explain what was meant by the date on which the judgment of conviction became final, so too was it necessary to provide such an explanation in § 2255(1). In addition, the legislative history of § 2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1) suggests that the textual difference between § 2241(d)(1) and § 2255(1) is “the product of the vagaries of the legislative process.” Kapral, 166 F.3d at 580-81 (Alito, J., concurring) (reviewing the origins of § 2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2255(1)). Finally, it makes no sense to conclude that Congress intended to treat state and federal prisoners differently. See Burch, 202 F.3d at 1278; Kapral, 166 F.3d at 575.
The second point relied upon by the majority to support its interpretation of § 2255(1) is premised on § 2263, which sets forth a period of limitation for the filing of habeas petitions by state prisoners who are serving capital sentences in qualifying states. According to the majority, it is “significant that Congress did not choose, as it did in § 2263, to use language in § 2255 that affirmatively expands the period of time before the start of the limitation period for filing a § 2255 motion.” Ante at 840. However the majority’s analysis ignores the import of the phrase “final State court affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review.” As the court in Kapral noted,
Congress’s use of “State court” to modify the well-settled meaning of direct review (which includes the right to seek review in the Supreme Court), provides strong support for the conclusion that the periods of limitation language in §§ 2244(d)(1) and 2255 — which lack an analogous modifier — run from the conclusion of Supreme Court review. In §§ 2244(d)(1) and 2255, Congress spoke in terms of “finality,” not in terms of “affirmance.”
Kapral, 166 F.3d at 576. Moreover, the absence of any analogous tolling provision for Supreme Court review in either § 2244 or § 2255 strongly suggests that Congress intended for the limitation provisions contained therein to begin after the time for certiorari review expired. See Kapral, 166 F.3d at 577.
Finally, in deciding which reasonable interpretation should control, I find the Supreme Court’s definition of “final judgment” in the context of the doctrine of retroactivity instructive. In Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 320-21, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), the Court sum*846marized the history of its retroactivity analysis. In that context, the Court stated that a conviction that is “final” means “a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiora-ri finally denied.” Id. at 321 n. 6,107 S.Ct. 708. I simply cannot see how Congress’ omission of the phrase “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review” in § 2255(1) means that Congress “intended to disrupt settled precedent by requiring that a criminal defendant pursue collateral relief before the time for seeking direct review expires and during a time period in which he or she may rightfully be considering the wisdom of further direct review.” Thomas, 203 F.3d at 354. As the court noted in Thomas, “such a rule would be inconsistent with the well-settled principles of finality in the collateral review context.” Id.; see also Kapral, 166 F.3d at 570 (“[Cjollateral attack is generally inappropriate if the possibility of further review remains open.”).
In summary, I would hold that, for purposes of § 2255(1), if a federal prisoner does not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court after his direct appeal, the one-year period of limitation begins to run when the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari expires. In this case, the one-year period of limitation began to run on August 17, 1997, ninety days after this court affirmed Torres’ conviction and sentence. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.1. Torres alleges that he filed his § 2255 motion on August 16, 1998, one day before the period of limitation had run, by placing that motion in the prison’s mail system. I would, therefore, vacate the district court’s order and remand the case to the district court to determine if Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (holding that a prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing), applies to § 2255 motions, and, if so, whether Torres satisfied its requirements.

. This principle is commonly referred to as the Russello presumption. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).

. In relevant part, § 2263 provides:
(a) Any application under this chapter for habeas corpus relief under section 2254 must be filed in the appropriate district court not later than 180 days after final State court affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.
(b) The time requirements established by subsection (a) shall be tolled—
(1) from the date that a petition for cer-tiorari is filed in the Supreme Court until the date of final disposition of the petition if a State prisoner files the petition to secure review by the Supreme Court of the- affir-mance of a capital sentence on direct review by the court of last resort of the State or other final State court decision on direct review....

. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Gamble follows the reasoning of an earlier Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350, 354 (5th Cir.2000), wherein the court found the reasoning of Kapral persuasive. See Gamble, 208 F.3d at 536.

. For this reason, unlike the Seventh Circuit in Gendron, the majority in this case wisely does not rely on the Russello presumption.