Order — U.S. v. Aditya Raj Sharma (D. Minn.)
Summary
An order by Judge David S. Doty dated January 3, 2024 and filed as Doc. 150 in United States v. Aditya Raj Sharma, Criminal No. 20-261 (DSD/TNL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. It recites that Sharma pleaded guilty to wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 on July 28, 2021, was sentenced in March 2022 to 60 months in prison, and that his conviction became final on September 20, 2022. The court finds his October 17, 2023 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 untimely, rejecting arguments based on new case law about actual versus intended loss and on counsel's errors as grounds for equitable tolling. It grants the government's motion to dismiss, denies the § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability, and stays his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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
Cite this document
“Order — U.S. v. Aditya Raj Sharma (D. Minn.).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-0-20-cr-00261-dkt-150-d-minn-9dbffe55b6/
, SHA-256 95a6e5e26ad49c82dbbd327fa10ed0539371a81b2b3da3e03e43ddeb47512070.Full text
CASE 0:20-cr-00261-DSD-TNL Doc. 150 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CRIMINAL NO. 20-261 (DSD/TNL)
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Aditya Raj Sharma,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court upon defendant Aditya Raj
Sharma’s motion to correct or amend sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
and motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The
government opposes the § 2255 motion as untimely and the § 3582
motion as premature. Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, Sharma’s motion
under § 2255 is dismissed and the motion under § 3582 is stayed. 1
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2021, Sharma pleaded guilty to wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. In March 2022, the court sentenced
him to a 60-month term of imprisonment to be followed by two years
1 Motions under § 3582 and the recent amendments to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines are being considered through
a separate process in this district. As a result, the court will
stay a determination on the § 3582 motion pending completion of
that process.
CASE 0:20-cr-00261-DSD-TNL Doc. 150 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 5
of supervised release. Sharma unsuccessfully appealed his
sentence to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eighth
Circuit entered judgment on June 22, 2022. Sharma did not file a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. As
a result, his conviction became final for purposes of § 2255 on
September 20, 2022. Sharma filed his § 2255 motion on October 17,
2023, twenty-seven days late.
Sharma is currently housed at FCP-Duluth and is due to be
released on October 13, 2025. On October 17, 2023, Shamra moved
pro se to correct or amend sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He
later retained counsel. ECF No. 145. The government now moves to
dismiss the motion as time barred.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard
Section 2255 provides a federal inmate with a limited
opportunity to challenge the constitutionality, legality, or
jurisdictional basis of a sentence imposed by the court. This
collateral relief is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for
violations of constitutional rights that could not have been raised
on direct appeal. United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th
Cir. 1996). When considering a § 2255 motion, a court may hold an
evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). A hearing is not
required, however, when “(1) the petitioner’s allegations,
2
CASE 0:20-cr-00261-DSD-TNL Doc. 150 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 5
accepted as true, would not entitle the petitioner to relief, or
(2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are
contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions
rather than statements of fact.” Sanders v. United States, 341
F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). Here, no hearing is required.
II. Timeliness of Motion
The government moves to dismiss Sharma’s motion as untimely
under § 2255(f). Relevant here, § 2255 motions must be filed
within one year of the latest of:
1. [T]he date on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final; [or]
4. [T]he 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(f)(1) & (4).
Sharma does not dispute that his conviction became final on
September 20, 2022, and that he had one year from that date to
timely file a motion under § 2255. He also does not dispute that
his motion was untimely under the first relevant clause of
§ 2255(f), as he filed it nearly a month after the deadline.
Sharma argues, however, that his motion is timely under clause
four due to intervening case law that he could not have discovered
before the filing deadline. Clause four does not address changes
in the law, however. Rather, it addresses the discovery of new
3
CASE 0:20-cr-00261-DSD-TNL Doc. 150 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 5
“facts” that could support a claim under § 2255. Sharma raises no
such facts here. As such, clause 4 is inapplicable.
Sharma also argues that the doctrine of equitable tolling
applies due to intervening law and the errors of his counsel.
Neither argument is tenable.
Equitable tolling applies if the moving party demonstrates
that (1) he has diligently pursued his rights, and (2) an
extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. Muhammad v.
United States, 735 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2013). Sharma contends
that new circuit case law supporting his claim that he should be
held responsible for actual loss rather than intended loss was
issued too close to his filing deadline for him to reasonably
discover in time. But a “decision taken from a federal court of
appeals does not provide an independent basis” for equitable
tolling. E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094, 1098 (8th Cir.
2006).
Sharma’s contention that his appellate and current counsel’s
errors fares no better under the law. “Ineffective assistance of
counsel generally does not warrant equitable tolling.” Beery v.
Ault, 312 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2002). Only serious attorney
misconduct rather than negligence may warrant such tolling. United
States v. Martin, 408 F.3d 1089, 1093 (8th Cir. 2005). No such
misconduct is alleged here. As a result, Sharma has failed to
establish the elements necessary for equitable tolling.
4
CASE 0:20-cr-00261-DSD-TNL Doc. 150 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 5
III. Certificate of Appealability
To warrant a certificate of appealability, a defendant must
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial
showing” requires a petitioner to establish that “reasonable
jurists” would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims “debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
483–84 (2000). The court is firmly convinced that Sharma’s claim
is barred as untimely, and that reasonable jurists could not differ
on the result. As a result, a certificate of appealability is not
warranted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion to dismiss [ECF No. 146] is granted;
2. The motion to correct or amend sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 [ECF No. 143] is denied as untimely;
3. The court stays determination of Sharma’s motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582; and
4. A certificate of appealability is denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 3, 2024
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
5
File and source
- File
- 150.pdf
- Size
- 95,778 bytes
- SHA-256
- 95a6e5e26ad49c82dbbd327fa10ed0539371a81b2b3da3e03e43ddeb47512070
- Our copy
- 150.pdf
- Original
- archive.org