Final report and recommendation denying 28 Usc 2255 motion — No. 1:22-cr-00224 (Dkt. 64, N.D. Ga.)
Summary
A Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly in Oluwagbemiga Otufale v. United States of America, Criminal Action No. 1:22-CR-224-LMM-CCB-1 and Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-4197-LMM-CCB, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed February 12, 2026 as Document 64. It recounts that Otufale pleaded guilty on December 7, 2022 to conspiring to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), was sentenced on June 14, 2023 to 84 months, and did not appeal, so his conviction became final on June 29, 2023. It finds his September 17, 2024 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 untimely and rejects equitable tolling. It recommends denying the amended motion as untimely, the original motion as moot, and a certificate of appealability.
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
“Final report and recommendation denying 28 Usc 2255 motion — No. 1:22-cr-00224 (Dkt. 64, N.D. Ga.).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/final-report-and-recommendation-denying-28-usc-2255-motion-no-1-22-cr-196a063896/
, SHA-256 d4a2f90a25b33ef15a3721b31f03b08c05e3c0e0ce5c1ecfb0e191f485bd130b.Full text
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
OLUWAGBEMIGA OTUFALE, MOTION TO VACATE
Movant, 28 U.S.C. § 2255
v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
1:22-CR-224-LMM-CCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent. CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:24-CV-4197-LMM-CCB
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Movant Oluwagbemiga Otufale, confined at FCI Memphis in Memphis,
Tennessee, submitted a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. [Docs. 58, 60]. The
Government filed a response in opposition. [Doc. 63]. Movant did not file a reply.
For the reasons stated below, I recommend that Movant’s amended § 2255
motion [Doc. 60] be DENIED, and that Movant’s original motion [Doc. 58] be
DENIED as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2022, Movant was charged with one count of conspiring to
commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and eleven counts of
money laundering in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). [Doc. 1]. On
December 7, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Movant entered a plea
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 8
of guilty to the conspiracy count alleged in the indictment. [Doc. 37-1]. On June 14,
2023, Movant was sentenced to 84 months of imprisonment to be followed by three
years of supervised release, and judgment was entered on June 15, 2023. [Doc. 50].
He did not file a direct appeal.
On September 17, 2024, Movant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. 58]. On December 19, 2024, he filed an
“Amended/Supplemental” motion. [Doc. 60].
II. DISCUSSION
A motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence may be made “upon the
ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or
that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise
subject to collateral attack[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). “[C]ollateral review is not a
substitute for a direct appeal[.]” Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th
Cir. 2004). Section 2255 relief “is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights
and for that narrow compass of other injury that could not have been raised in direct
appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). A § 2255 movant “has the burden of sustaining
2
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 8
his contentions by a preponderance of the evidence.” Tarver v. United States, 344 F.
App’x 581, 582 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A § 2255 motion is subject to a one-year statute of limitations, which runs
from the latest of the following:
(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(f).
In this case, there is no claim that the circumstances set forth in subparagraphs
(2), (3), and (4) of § 2255(f) apply. Movant’s conviction became final, for the
purposes of § 2255(f)(1), on June 29, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i)
(providing that a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district
court within fourteen days of the entry of judgment); see also Murphy v. United
States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen a defendant does not appeal
his conviction or sentence, the judgment of conviction becomes final when the time
for seeking that review expires.”).
3
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 8
In his original motion, which he purports to incorporate by reference in his
amended motion, see [Doc. 60 at 11], Movant argues that “the time limitation is not
applicable in this matter” because “the restraint of [Movant’s] personal liberty by
the Respondent” rendered Movant “unable to conduct adequate investigation . . . in
time to submit for relief.” [Doc. 58 at 11]. Movant therefore “believe[s he is] entitled
to equitable tolling on [his] claims under Section 2255(f)(4).” [Id.]. Movant claims
to have “discovered” the facts presented in his motion in July of 2024 “through
self-study of the Constitution, legal research from the law library provided by
Respondent and review of the record.” [Id.]. In his amended motion, Movant further
argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his conviction and sentence are
“absolutely void ab initio” and “a challenge to a void judgment is an exception to
the rule.” [Doc. 60 at 11].
Aside from the fact of his confinement itself, which does not constitute an
extraordinary circumstance, Movant does not claim that extraordinary circumstances
might excuse the late filing of his § 2255 motion. See Outler v. United States, 485
F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The statute of limitations can be equitably tolled
where a petitioner untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are
both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence. . . . The burden of
establishing entitlement to this extraordinary remedy plainly rests with the
4
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 8
petitioners.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). He simply claims that
he is “entitled to equitable tolling on [his] claims” because his motion presents
“meritorious federal questions discovered in July 2024,” and because his conviction
and sentence are void. [Doc. 58 at 11; Doc. 60 at 11]. That Movant did not “discover”
his claims until July of 2024 does not constitute a basis for equitable tolling. “[A]
lack of a legal education and related confusion or ignorance about the law [are not]
excuses for a failure to file in a timely fashion.” Perez v. Fla., 519 F. App’x 995,
997 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Rivers v. United States, 416 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir.
2005)); see also Outler, 485 F.3d at 1282 n.4 (“[P]ro se litigants, like all others, are
deemed to know of the one-year statute of limitations.”).
And although he offers conclusory assertions that his conviction and sentence
are void based on alleged constitutional violations, Movant does not claim that he is
actually innocent. See McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2011)
(“[A] movant’s procedural default is excused if he can show that he is actually
innocent . . . of the crime of conviction[.]”).
Accordingly, Movant’s § 2255 motion should be denied as untimely. 1
1
In light of the fact that the motion is untimely, I decline to address the merits
of the motion or the other arguments raised by Respondent.
5
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 8
Additionally, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary in this case. A court is
not required to hold an evidentiary hearing every time a § 2255 claim is raised. See
Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1989). Instead, a federal habeas
corpus petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only where he alleges facts
that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. See id. A court also is not required to hold
an evidentiary hearing when “the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or
otherwise precludes habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).
Here, the record conclusively shows that Movant is entitled to no relief; a hearing,
therefore, is not required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[t]he
district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final
order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must state
the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by
28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(2).” 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Rule 11(a). Section 2253(c)(2)
states that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” A substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right “includes showing that reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [motion to vacate] should have
6
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 8
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When the district court denies a [motion to vacate] on procedural
grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim
. . . a certificate of appealability should issue only when the prisoner
shows both that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
[motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 n.3 (2009) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 484)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
I RECOMMEND that a certificate of appealability be denied because the
resolution of the issue presented—that Movant did not timely file his § 2255
motion—is not debatable. If the District Judge adopts this recommendation and
denies a certificate of appealability, Movant is advised that he “may not appeal the
denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22.” 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Rule 11(a).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I RECOMMEND that Movant’s original
motion to vacate [Doc. 58] be DENIED as moot, that Movant’s amended motion
7
Case 1:22-cr-00224-LMM-CCB Document 64 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 8
[Doc. 60] be DENIED as untimely, that a certificate of appealability be DENIED,
and that civil action number 1:24-cv-4197-LMM-CCB be CLOSED.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 12th day of February, 2026.
___________________________________
CHRISTOPHER C. BLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
File and source
- File
- 64-final-report-and-recommendation-denying-28-usc-2255-motion-o.pdf
- Size
- 296,764 bytes
- SHA-256
- d4a2f90a25b33ef15a3721b31f03b08c05e3c0e0ce5c1ecfb0e191f485bd130b
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov