Ademiju v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on timeliness grounds, defendant's habeas petition that challenged his healthcare fraud conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of any immigration consequences to his guilty plea to said charge, where, following his release from federal prison on instant charge, defendant was transferred to custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where defendant learned from his immigration attorney that terms of his plea agreement subjected him to mandatory deportation. Defendant filed instant petition several months after relevant one-year period for filing habeas petitions, and defendant was not entitled to equitable tolling of limitations period, where he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. Fact that his trial counsel gave erroneous legal advice about his deportability both before and after his sentencing, that his counsel erroneously told him after sentencing that he could not challenge instant final judgment, or that he had inadequate prison law library did not require different result. Ct. further observed that defendant was clearly advised in plea agreement that no one, including his attorney or Dist. Ct., could predict with certainty effect of his conviction on his immigration status, and that he was reminded that he wanted to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequence.