Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Liduvina Zuniga-Sagrero pleaded guilty in August 2023 to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. Under the plea agreement, the government dismissed a conspiracy count. The court sentenced her to 108 months in prison and five years of supervised release, and she did not appeal.
In November 2025, Zuniga-Sagrero filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She asserted ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntariness and duress surrounding her guilty plea, sentencing disparity, failure to consider rehabilitation, improper denial of compassionate-release motions, denial of trial and due-process rights, and unequal treatment in the award of federal prison time credits.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. It held that the claims concerning sentencing disparity and rehabilitation did not challenge the legality of the original sentence and were not cognizable under § 2255. The challenge to prior compassionate-release rulings belonged in a direct appeal from those rulings, while the challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation and application of time credits had to be pursued under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The time-credit ruling was without prejudice to raising the issue through the proper procedure and in the proper forum.
The court held that the remaining claims, including ineffective assistance, denial of the right to trial, national-origin discrimination, and plea duress, were barred by AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. Zuniga-Sagrero’s conviction became final on December 5, 2023, giving her until December 5, 2024, to file; she did not file until November 3, 2025. The court rejected equitable tolling because she did not demonstrate diligent pursuit of her rights or an extraordinary circumstance that caused the delay. Alleged misinformation from prison law-library staff, lack of legal knowledge, lay status, and limited English proficiency were insufficient on the record presented. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Key Takeaways
- A § 2255 motion generally addresses the legality of a conviction or sentence, not post-sentencing rehabilitation, sentencing disparities standing alone, or review of compassionate-release decisions.
- Challenges to the Bureau of Prisons’ administration of time credits ordinarily must proceed under § 2241 rather than § 2255.
- Equitable tolling of AEDPA’s deadline requires both diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that actually caused the late filing; misunderstanding the law or limited English proficiency alone does not suffice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the strict procedural boundaries among federal post-conviction remedies. Prisoners must use § 2255 to attack the legality of a conviction or sentence, § 2241 to challenge the execution of a sentence, and a direct appeal to obtain review of adverse compassionate-release rulings.
It also underscores that AEDPA’s one-year filing period can dispose of constitutional claims without review on the merits. A petitioner seeking equitable tolling must connect an external obstacle to the untimely filing and show diligent action throughout the relevant period.