Motion for Reconsideration for Extension of Time — USA v. Harun (Dkt. 52, S.D. Ga.)

Summary

Gladys Harun, acting pro se, filed this motion on 01/24/25 as Document 52 in Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE (Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division), asking the court to reconsider and extend the time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion cites limited prison law library access, with 6 computers for roughly 650 or more prisoners, the clerk's 09/26/2024 denial of requested case documents and former attorneys' failure to send case files, and invokes actual innocence.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES a

R ,
EeEONOENT CASE:CR 323-003

V *
* Soe Or OEORGIA
‘ i

GLADYS HARUN 4 SOUTHERN
PETITIONER de JAN 24 2025
FILED

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
28 USC 2255 MOTION

Comes now petitioner Gladys Harun in pro se moving this court
again to extend time for her to file relief under 28 U.S.C.
2255. Petitioner hereby provide substantive grounds for 2255
relief factors for the court to consider in extending the
limitation period. Petitioner asserts that she never provided
these details in her recently denied motion on the same issue.
Petitioner agrees with the court that she waived her right
to collaterally attack her conviction and sentence in her plea
agreement. However the plea agreement also gave her an exception
the vehicle she now seeks to use in collaterally attacking her
Conviction and sentence. Petitioner therefore intends to file a
28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on a claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel as allowed in the plea agreement.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 2 of 12
Petitioner hereby invokes actual innocence and fundamental
miscarriage of justice to excuse procedural defaults.
"actual innocence , if proved, serves as a gateway through which
a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural
bar, as it was in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.CT eal,
130L. Ed.2d 808, and House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 126 S.Ct.
2064, 165 L.Ed. 2d 1..." McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383,
133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013). In other words if petitioner could
show that she is actually innocent of the charges, she would
be entitled to equitable tolling and her 2255 motion would not
be time barred.

Petitioner hereby presents substantive grounds for 2255
relief. She discusses factors delienated in 2255(f£) that are

applicable in her situation to extend the limitation period

for filing 2255 motion.

A. ) UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR UNLAWFUL IMPEDIMENT TO FILING

UNDER 2255(£) (2)

Petitioner demonstrates violation of the right of access to the
courts under Lewis v. Casey, 518 us 343, 116 S. Ct 2174, 135L. ed
2d 606 (1996). Petitioner asserts that she diligently pursued
her federal claims but was prevented from doing so as a result of
deficiencies in the prison law library. Petitioner has very mick
limited access to law research time because the camp has only 6
law law library computers serving roughly 650 or more prisoners.
Due to excessive lock downs and recalls, petitioner has to remain

in her cube and cannot go to the law library. Once in the law
library, the lines are long and waiting times are lengthy. This
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 3 of 12
has made it difficult for petitioner to do meaningful research in
law to draft a 2255 motion. This impediment from the prison law
library should trigger a new limitation period under 2255(f£)(2).
DENIAL’ OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS
On 09/26/2024, petitioner received a denial letter from
the court. Petitioner had requested various documents she requires
including a motion of discovery, warrant for arrest, warrants for
Seizure of bank accounts, warrants for seizure of her IPP
internet online items and grand jury indictment transcript
(CR 322- 009 and CR 323-003-001).
The clerk of court indicated: that there was no motion of
discovery on file and she denied petitioner the remaining documents
Saying they were not for public disclosure (see attached letter
letter sent to the clerk of court and her reply letter) .Cgywwit land 2)
This contradicted what petitioners attorneys had told her . They
had indicated there is a motion of discovery onfile with the court
that details specifically how the case originated..

This denial of exculpatory documents t0shelp petitioner

draft a 2255 violated petitioner's right of access to courts

and creates an impediment under 2255(f)(2) to trigger a new
limitation period. Once the court denied release of these
documents, petitioner wrote all her four previous attorneys to
release case files to her. Petitioner sent them letters using
certified mail. Her previous attorneys received the letters; 3 of

them ignored her. None of them sent petitioner any document.
Petitioner through her family has called, and emailed these attorneys

but they have not surrendered the requested documents.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 4 of 12
On October 22, 2024, petitioner received a letter from her
defense attorney Johnny vines. Petitioner had written him a letter
requesting hard copies of case files so she can use them to
prepare a 2255 motion. Mr vines wrote her back asking for a 4-
terabyte hardrive (see attached letter exhibit Y).

The federal camp informed petitioner that hard drives are not
permitted. Petitioner wrote Mr. vines again requesting for hard
OR PAPFR COPIFS OF HFR legal documents- several documets but

he has not responded to this request as of today..

Withholding access to legal documents and necessary information
is an impediment that has prevented petitioner from filing a

timely 2255 motion.

B .) DUE DILIGFNCR REQUIRFMENT
Petitioner hereby demonstrates that she has been diligently seeking
her rights but circumstances beyond her control have made it
impossible for her to file a timely 2255 motion..
Section 2255 (£)(4) does not require the maximum feasibility
diligence but only "due' or reasonable diligence (Aron v. United
states, 291 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir 2002) (citing wims, 225
F.3d at 190 n.4)
Petitioner asserts that she has made reasonable efforts to obtain
her case documents but failed due to circumstances beyond her
control as explained.
Petitioner therefore seeks equitable tolling and has demonstrated
two elements (1) That she has been pursuing her rights diligently
(2) That some extra ordinary circumstance stood in her way
(Pace 544 U.S at 418,125 S.Ct at 1814(citing Irwing v. Department

of veterans affairs , 498 U.S 89, 86 96 111s ct 453, 112 L .Fd
2d -435 (1990))
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 5 of 12
Petitioner has included a motion requesting the court to help in
compelling her attorneys to surrender her case files.

Petitioner was a franchisee of Jackson Hewitt tax service prior
to incarceration. This company has ignored her repeated requests
for her business records over and over.. Petitioner is in dire
needs of these docunencs to support her 2255 motion. Petitioner
has therefore included a motion requesting court to compell

Jackson Hewitt to release her documents.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 6 of 12
C. ) DISCOVFRY OF NFW FACTS UNDFR 2255 (£)(4)
In cases of newly discovered evidence, 2255 (f£)(4) ensures that

section 2255 relief may be sought even though the movant's

convictidn has been final for more than a year. see
Wims v. United States 225 F.3d 186 190 2000 us AP lexis

23272 (2nd Cir 2000)
Petitioner discovered the actual innocence exception and fundamemtal

miscarriage of justice in December of 2024. Petitioner has no
training in law and could not have discovered this sooner
Petitioner has limited access to prison law library which makes
it difficult to research issues sorrounding law.

under 2255(£)(4) "the due diligence inquiry is an individualized
one that must take into account the conditions of confinement

and the reality of the prison system' Aron 291 F.3d at 712 (inter
marks omitted) "unlike the general popul ati sao which has

a greater access to court opinions, prisoners must rely exclusively
upon the prison law library to discover information contained in
new case". see Fasterwood v. Champion, 213 F.3d 1321, 1323 (10th
Cir 2000). Thus where the factual erent of the claim can be
found in a court decision, the claim is not discoverable by an
incarcerated prisoner exercising ‘due diligence" until the date
the opinion became? accesiblein the prison law library,

rather than the date the opinion was issued. id.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 7 of 12
D. ) A SHOWING OF ACTUAL / ACTUAL INNOCFNCF PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR FQUITABLFE TOLLING.

Petitioner invokes actual innocence and fundamental miscarriage

of justite to excuse procedural defaults. The eleventh circuit has
held that a showing of actual innocence "serves ... to lift the
procedural bar caused by the movant's failure to timely file a

2255 motion" United states v. Montano, 398 F.3d 1276, 1284

(11th Cir 2005) some courts have held that actual innocence

can provide basis for equitable tolling of the limitation period.
"in appropriate cases, the principle of comity and finality that
inform concepts of cause and prejudice must yield to the imperative
of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration (citing

Engle v. Isaak, 456 U.S 107, 135 (1982). We remain confident

that for the most part victims of a fundamental miscarriaGF OF
JUSTICF will meet the cause and prejudicestandard. But we do not
pretend —- this will be always be true. Accordingly, we think

that in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation

has probably resulted in conviction of one who is actually innocent
a federal habeas court may grantthe writ even in the absence of

a showing of cause for the procedural default" Murray v. Carrier,

477 U.S478, 495-6(1986)

Petitioner contends that hers is an "appropriate case" for the
application of this exception.

FR. ) DISCOVERY OF FXCULPATORY FVIDFNCF

In December of 2024, petitioner obtained newly discovered
evidence that if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a
whole is sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence

that no reasonable fact finder would have found her guilYof the ©
offenses. This exculpatory evidence is material to the claim.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 8 of 12
Petitioner avers that she could not have reasonably discovered

the facts earlier and that the evidence is material to claim

CONCLUSION

Petitioner once again moves the court for a 90 days extension for
her to file a 2255 motion. Wherefore above premises considered,
petitioner moves this court to grant this motion in the nature of

fairness and equity.

Sun mi v4

oil 13 {aoa
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 9 of 12
Exhwole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

JOHN E. TRIPLETT
CLERK OF COURT

ELIZABETH M. NELSON
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

September 26, 2024

Gladys Harun (#09407-510)
Federal Prison Camp

One Glen Ray Rd.

PO Box A

Alderson, WV 24910

Gladys Harun:

Your letter requesting a copy of your Motion for Discovery, Warrant for Arrest,
Warrants for Seizure of Bank Accounts, Warrant for Seizure of Online Items, and Grand
Jury Indictment Transcript (CR 322-009-001; CR 323-003-001) has been received.

A copy of your docket sheet in both of your criminal cases is being forwarded to
you as acourtesy. There is not a Motion for Discovery on the record and the remaining
documents you are requesting is not for public disclosure. If upon your review of the docket
sheets you need a copy of any document, then you will need to remit the appropriate
amount to the U.S. Clerk of Court and indicate the case number and the docket number of
the copy you wish to obtain. The Clerk's office charges $0.50 per page for copies.

Very truly yours,

JOHN E. TRIPLETT, CLERK OF COURT

By: __[ ants Yrlge ‘
Deputy Clerk

AUGUSTA FEDERAL COURTHOUSE #600 JAMES BROWN BLVD @ AuGusTA, GA 30901 706-849-4400
FRANK M. SCARLETT FEDERAL BUILDING # 801 GLOUCESTER STREET ® BRUNSWICK, GA 31520 912-280-1330
J. Roy ROWLAND U.S. COURTHOUSE @ 100 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET @ DuBLIN, GA 31021
TOMOCHICHI FEDERAL BUILDING AND U.S. COURTHOUSE @ 124 BARNARD STREET @ SAVANNAH, GA 31401 912-650-4020
WAYCROSS FEDERAL COURTHOUSE # 601 TEBEAU STREET @ Waycross, GA 31501
STATESBORO FEDERAL COURTHOUSE @ 52 NORTH MAIN STREET ® STATESBORO, GA 30458
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 10 of 12
SE ore,

oa he #
JOHNNY VINES

Post Office Box 1422 * Metter, Georgia 30439 ¢ vineslaw.com
Email: jecvines@yineslaw.com Telephone: (912) 388-7071 (912) 243-0519 Fax: (912) 537-6600

October 22, 2024

Alderson Federal Prison Camp

Inmate: Gladys Harun

Fed. No.: 09407510

P.O. Box A Seis “ai
Anderson, WV 24910

Re: October Letter

Dear Ms. Harun:

I received your letter. Please provide me with a 4-terabyte hard-drive. Once the hard-drive is

received. I will try to send you an encrypted, redacted copy of your discovery.

Regards,
2" Ud Ze
a tee Se ae
<> fon ee aad
a og

Johnny Vines, Esq.

ce: file
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 11 of 12
; K Wothke

- - . - = re]
os - — < -—-- neateemeens ily

Gladys Harun
Fed No: 09407510
Dorm: B1
Alderson Federal Camp
One Glen Ray Rd
. PO BOXA

Alderson WV 24910
09/11/24

Clerk of Court

United States District Court

Southern District Court

600 James Brown Blvd

Augusta Ga 30901

Re: request for documents

| hereby request you to send me a copy of these documents. | believe | was supposed to get a copy unfortunately all along the
case | never had a chance to go through them. My lawyer did not share them either. Kindly send me a courtesy copy of the
following:

1. Motion of discovery

2. Warrant of my arrest

3..Warrants for seizure of my bank accounts

4. Warrant for seizure of online items from internet protocol.

| do not have a way of paying; kindly send them free. | appreciate your help in this matter.

Thank you \ wd Le as have

Sincerely,
GQ breasenpe 4 aC qand

Gladys Harun
jor \acherrene'

~ Meaw ry
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 52     Filed 01/24/25     Page 12 of 12
SajelS Pawan

LO6GE V& esr bny
VLASIG) WiaYuNGS

OA 1d Wmolg Sawer ggg
NOD Sa}BS payury

TS 6699 EO4T O429 OT¢2o Bese
OL-L8Z20SHbeEN™s SNI7 G3LL00 LV a104 ‘ssauaay
66 Ody 1914 3 iLO JdO13AN3 40 dO oH) L :

en oe Te

AN 91 WO4
dvd 39VLsOd ‘s'n [1ej0Yy Hoe?
me hoy vay 20

dey vosud wpa}

CISL onha?: IN yay
(Gas j


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.52.0.pdf

Size

2,559,547 bytes

SHA-256

e82abd1ba7af5eecf5cf262d9d347ecfdb5748b5da7cee9c67f7507fa35e4d89

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)