USA v. Tim Williams, No. 09-41134 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-41134 Document: 00511302870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-41134 Summary Calendar November 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TIM C WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CV-109 USDC No. 2:02-CR-105-1 Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Tim C. Williams, federal prisoner # 84106-012, appeals the district court s dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction for conspiracy to launder money. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). The district court granted Williams a certificate of appealability on the issue whether [the district court] can determine that [United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008)] is retroactively applicable for purposes of [] § 2255(f)(3), and, if * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-41134 Document: 00511302870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2010 No. 09-41134 so, whether Santos is retroactively applicable such that Williams motion [was] timely filed under § 2255(f)(3). This court reviews a district court s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Redd, 562 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 308 (2009). The limitation period for filing a § 2255 motion runs from, inter alia, the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. § 2255(f)(3). As the Government concedes, for purposes of retroactivity concerning the limitations period, any court can hold that a new rule applies retroactively; it need not be the Supreme Court. See United States v. Lopez, 248 F.3d 427, 431-32 (5th Cir. 2001). Williams argues that in light of Santos, the conduct underlying his conviction for conspiracy to launder money was not criminal because the money at issue did not constitute profits. In Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 397 (5th Cir. 2010), we recently held that Santos applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. As the Government concedes, Williams s § 2255 motion was timely filed for purposes of § 2255(f)(3) because his § 2255 motion, filed in May 2009, was filed within one year of the June 2, 2008, Santos decision. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Williams s § 2255 motion as barred by the statute of limitations, and we VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the issue of procedural bar, raised by the Government for the first time on appeal, or on the merits of Williams s § 2255 motion. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
