Case Explained: 26a0234p.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 The sixth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Roy West’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from his § 2255 judgment, thereby denying habeas relief. The court held that even if the prior judgment were vacated, West’s underlying *Apprendi* claim regarding an uncharged “death results” sentencing enhancement would be barred by the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The court applied the standard that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances and requires the underlying claim to be potentially meritorious and reviewable. The court reasoned that because West failed to raise the *Apprendi* issue on direct appeal or in his initial § 2255 motion, the claim was procedurally defaulted. To overcome this default, West would need to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence. The court found he could not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel because an *Apprendi* error is subject to harmless error review, and the evidence linking West to the death of the victim was overwhelming; thus, he could not show a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted had the jury been properly instructed. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court rejected West’s arguments for tolling or relation back. It found no equitable tolling because West was not diligent in pursuing his rights during the seven-and-a-half years following the expiration of the limitation period, and attorney negligence does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The court also ruled that the claim did not relate back to his 2014 motion because the core operative facts differed: the prior claim concerned ineffective assistance regarding the medical cause of death, while the current claim concerns the jury instructions and sentencing elements. Furthermore, the court found no fraud on the court or fraudulent concealment by the government, as there was no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or reckless disregard for the truth. Finally, West failed to establish actual innocence, as the new evidence (a polygraph report regarding a co-defendant’s witness) did not show it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Consequently, reopening the judgment would be an empty exercise because any new § 2255 petition would be time-barred. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.