United States v. Dean Lafromboise

Dean LaFromboise appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for habe-as relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . LaF-romboise challenges his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, misjoinder of charges, and improper application of the sentencing guidelines. The district court did not reach the merits of LaFromboise’s collateral attack, and instead denied the motion as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 124 . See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“ § 2255”). Because the district court’s judgment in the underlying criminal proceedings is not yet final, however, we vacate the order denying LaFromboise’s § 2255 motion and remand with directions to dismiss the motion without prejudice.

I.

A jury convicted LaFromboise of five counts related to his involvement in a narcotics trafficking scheme, including conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . The jury also convicted him of three…

dissenting:

I agree with the majority that LaFrom-boise’s conviction and sentence must be *687 final before the one-year limitation period for filing a § 2255 motion begins to run. I also agree that finality does not occur until the district court has acted on our mandate and the time to appeal that action has passed. The majority errs, however, when it holds that an amended judgment is required to obtain finality in this case. Here, finality was achieved when the district court acted on this court’s mandate by dismissing the firearms charges, and the time passed to appeal that order. Col-vin supports this conclusion. Colvin held that finality was achieved in that case not when the time expired for filing a petition for writ of certiorari from our decision in his direct appeal as urged by the government, but rather when the time expired to appeal the amended judgment entered by the district court. Colvin’s holding hinged on the finality of the proceedings, not on the fact that finality was achieved through an amended judgment.

The purpose behind Colvin’s holding was to avoid a defendant having to speculate about the effect of a mandate on the finality of a judgment. 204 F.3d at…

427 F.3d 680 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean LaFROMBOISE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-35853. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 14, 2005. Filed October 26, 2005. Wendy Holton, Helena, MT, for the appellant. William W. Mercer, Billings, MT, and John A. Drennan, Washington, DC, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-99-00080-BLG/DS, CR-94-0082-JDS. Before TASHIMA, PAEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. PAEZ, Circuit Judge. 1 Dean LaFromboise appeals the district court's order denying his motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . LaFromboise challenges his conviction and sentence on several grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, misjoinder of charges, and improper application of the sentencing guidelines. The district court did not reach the merits of LaFromboise's collateral attack, and instead denied the motion as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L.No.…