F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 30 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 02-2313
v. (D. New Mexico)
ENRIQUE PEDRAZA, (D.C. Nos. CIV-02-1192-MCA/WWD
& CR-90-285-SC)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Enrique Pedraza appeals the district court’s October 24, 2002 order denying
the relief sought in his motion for a new trial and allowing him twenty days to
withdraw the motion or have the motion recharacterized and considered under 28
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
U.S.C. § 2255. We conclude that the district court’s October 24, 2002 order is
not a final judgment and that, as a result, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Pedraza was convicted after a jury trial of possession with the intent to
distribute and conspiracy with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of
cocaine, violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. This court affirmed his
convictions on appeal. See United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir.
1994).
Mr. Pedraza reports that on November 27, 1997, he filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion to vacate, set aside or modify his sentence. In January 1998, the
district court denied his motion as untimely under the one-year statute of
limitations set forth in the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA). See Rec. doc. 1, at 2 (Motion for New Trial, filed Sept. 23, 2002).
On September 23, 2002, Mr. Pedraza filed a motion for a new trial in the
district court. He argued that on November 8, 2001, he had discovered
information pertaining to an internal affairs investigation within the United States
Customs Service that may have provided him with a defense to the prosecution’s
charges. Mr. Pedraza’s theory is that the internal affairs information reveals that
“the real reasons behind the sting operation [that led to his convictions] was to
-2-
steal money rather than drug interdiction.” Id. at 15. He therefore reasons that
this “evidence would have drastically enhanced [his] entrapment defense.” Id.
According to Mr. Pedraza, the prosecution knew about this evidence prior to his
trial but failed to disclose it, thereby violating due process principles established
by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
In reviewing Mr. Pedraza’s motion, the district court noted that under Fed.
R. Crim P. 33, a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must
be filed within three years after the verdict. Here, the jury returned guilty
verdicts against Mr. Pedraza on November 15, 1991, more than ten years before
he filed this motion. Accordingly, the court concluded, Mr. Pedraza’s motion was
untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.
The district court also applied this circuit’s decision in United States v.
Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2002):
[D]istrict courts should not recharacterize a
motion purportedly made under some other
rule as a motion made under § 2255 unless (a)
the movant, with knowledge of the potential
adverse consequences of such
recharacterization, agrees to have the motion
so recharacterized, or (b) the court finds that,
notwithstanding its designation, the motion
should be considered as made under § 2255
because of the nature of the relief sought, and
offers the movant the opportunity to withdraw
the motion rather than have it so
recharacterized.
-3-
Kelly, 235 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 (2d
Cir. 1998)). Accordingly, the court allowed Mr. Pedraza twenty days to withdraw
his motion or notify the court in writing that he wished to have the motion
recharacterized as a § 2255 motion. Before the expiration of this twenty-day
period, Mr. Pedraza filed a notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Absent certain limited exceptions, “federal appellate courts have
jurisdiction solely over appeals from final decisions of the district courts of the
United States.” Rekstad v. First Bank Sys. Inc., 238 F.3d 1259, 1261 (10th Cir.
2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291) (emphasis deleted). A final decision is one that
“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). Here,
the district court has not yet determined whether Mr. Pedraza elects to continue to
proceed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 or to recharacterize his motion as filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As a result, the district court has not yet entered a final
decision in this case. Cf. Zucker v. Maxicare Health Plans, Inc., 14 F.3d 477, 481
(9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a district court’s order providing that it would
become final five days after the filing of a joint notice was not a final judgment
because the joint notice had not been filed and because the district court had
-4-
taken no action indicating that the order was a final judgment despite the
nonfulfillment of that condition). We thus lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
In the district court proceedings, Mr. Pedraza should inform the court
whether he is proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 or 28 U.S.C § 2255.
Different time limitations apply to these two provisions.
Rule 33 motions for a new trial must be filed within three years after the
entry of a final judgment. See United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1274
(10th Cir. 2000). In contrast to that absolute time limitation regarding Rule 33
motions, the limitations period for § 2255 motions is somewhat flexible. In
particular, a one-year limitations period for the filing of these motions runs from
the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
governmental action;
(3) 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; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-5-
However, a pending motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 generally
does not toll the statute of limitations period for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
See Trenkler v. United States, 268 F.3d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 2001) (stating that “there
is no statutory basis for tolling the limitations period while the prisoner seeks
post-conviction relief under Rule 33”); United States v. Prescott, 221 F.3d 686,
688-89 (4th Cir. 2000) (same). Additionally, when a prisoner has filed a prior §
2255 motion (as Mr. Pedraza admits he has done here), the second § 2255 motion:
must be certified as provided in section 2244 2 by a panel
of the appropriate court of appeals to contain--
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed
in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no
reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty
of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to
cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Upon Mr. Pedraza’s determination of how his motion should
be characterized, the district court should apply the appropriate standard.
2
Section 2244 provides in part that “[n]o circuit or district judge shall be
required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it
appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court
of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as
provided in section 2255.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).
-6-
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal. Mr. Pedraza’s Motion for a
Certificate of Appealability, and Motion to the District Court’s Administrative
Designation of Appellant’s Motion for New Trial - as a Section 2255 Motion are
both denied as moot.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-7-