Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Luis Diaz-Acosta pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal from the United States and was sentenced to 110 months in prison. The Fifth Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous on August 17, 2022, and Diaz-Acosta did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Diaz-Acosta placed his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the prison mailing system on June 8, 2026. He alleged that his Sentencing Guidelines range had been calculated incorrectly, characterized his sentence as too harsh, and appeared to seek a reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821. When ordered to explain why his motion was timely, he instead argued that Amendment 821 supported a sentence reduction.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the § 2255 motion with prejudice as untimely. Because Diaz-Acosta did not invoke any alternative accrual provision under § 2255(f), the one-year limitations period began when his conviction became final on November 17, 2022, after the 90-day period for seeking certiorari expired. His June 2026 filing came well after the resulting deadline.
The court also held that equitable tolling did not apply. Diaz-Acosta’s asserted ignorance of the law, including retroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendments, was not an extraordinary circumstance warranting tolling. The court further explained that a request to reduce a sentence based on a Guidelines range later lowered by the Sentencing Commission is not cognizable under § 2255 and instead should be presented through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Key Takeaways
- A § 2255 motion ordinarily must be filed within one year after the conviction becomes final.
- Ignorance of the law or of later Sentencing Guidelines amendments does not establish equitable tolling.
- A sentence-reduction request based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment must be pursued under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), not § 2255.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that federal prisoners must separately evaluate the proper procedure and deadline for each form of post-conviction relief. A retroactive Guidelines amendment does not revive an expired § 2255 limitations period, although relief under § 3582(c)(2) may be pursued through the appropriate motion.