## Facts

- Michael J. Guinan was convicted in federal court of filing false tax returns.
- After his convictions became final, Guinan sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- He asserted that newly discovered evidence showed he was innocent.
- He also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and raised other post-conviction claims.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief, and Guinan appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal prisoner may use 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to avoid Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33’s time limit for seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
2. Whether a claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence, without alleging a constitutional or jurisdictional defect, is cognizable under § 2255.
3. Whether Guinan’s additional claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, warranted § 2255 relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.
- The court held that § 2255 cannot be used to circumvent Rule 33’s deadline for new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence.
- Relying on Herrera v. Collins, the court held that refusal to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not actionable on collateral review, and § 2255 is limited to jurisdictional or constitutional errors.
- The court rejected Guinan’s remaining claims, including ineffective assistance, as plainly meritless and did not discuss them further.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2255 motion is a collateral remedy confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or errors of constitutional magnitude; it is not a general device for re-litigating factual guilt based on later-discovered evidence.
- A prisoner may not use § 2255 as an end run around Rule 33’s time bar for motions seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- Newly discovered evidence that tends to show factual innocence, standing alone and without an underlying constitutional or jurisdictional violation, does not state a claim for § 2255 relief.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that § 2255 does not permit relief based solely on newly discovered evidence of innocence and cannot be used to evade Rule 33’s deadline for new-trial motions; because Guinan alleged no cognizable constitutional or jurisdictional defect and his other claims lacked merit, denial of collateral relief was affirmed.


Guinan v. United States, 6 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1993)