United States v. Gilbert, No. 13-36006 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of the production of child pornography, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, and obstruction of justice. Defendant subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as time barred. Under section 2255(f), there is a one-year period of limitation to file a collateral attack on a federal conviction that runs from the latest of four events, including the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. The court held that when a judgment imposes a sentence but leaves the amount of restitution to be determined, the one-year statute of limitations to file a section 2255 motion does not restart when the specific amount of restitution is later entered. In this case, defendant waived his claim for equitable tolling. Even assuming defendant's counsel did give erroneous advice on the filing deadline, this is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that compels equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time barred. The panel held that a sentence of incarceration coupled with an unspecified amount of restitution is a sufficiently final judgment to support a direct appeal, and that it follows that once the time for filing a direct appeal of this type of judgment expires, the one-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) to file a collateral attack on a federal conviction is triggered. The panel held that when a judgment imposes a sentence but leaves the amount of restitution to be determined, the one-year statute of limitations to file a § 2255 motion does not restart when the specific amount of restitution is later entered. The panel held that the prisoner waived his claim that he is entitled to equitable tolling, but that even if not waived, the claim has no merit. The panel wrote that assuming prisoner’s counsel gave erroneous advice on the filing deadline, this is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that compels equitable tolling. UNITED STATES V. GILBERT 3
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.