Blitch v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying as untimely defendant’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to reopen his habeas proceedings that challenged his 25-year sentence on his drug and firearm’s convictions. Record showed that: (1) defendant filed his section 2255 habeas petition, which challenged his sentence, but made no reference to recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mathis, 579 U.S. 500; (2) during pendency of his habeas petition, defendant filed motion to amend his petition to raise Mathis issue that, according to defendant, precluded sentencing court from considering prior conviction as “controlled substance offense, for purposes of applying section 841(b) enhancement to his sentence; (3) on October 31, 2018, Dist. Ct. denied habeas petition without ruling on defendant’s motion to amend; and (4) on May 29, 2020, defendant filed instant Rule 60(b) motion. Ct. of Appeals found that Rule 60(b)(1) applied, where defendant essentially argued that Dist. Ct. made mistake in failing to act on motion to amend, but that Dist. Ct. properly denied motion to reopen, where said motion was filed outside applicable one-year limitations period for filing said motion that began with denial of habeas petition. Ct. further noted that defendant had opportunity to raise Mathis issue on direct appeal of habeas denial, but defendant failed to file any direct appeal.