Criminal – Defendant fails to show government perpetuated fraud on the court

Where the defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion – arguing that the government perpetuated a fraud on the court – failed to satisfy the exacting Rule 60 standard, was untimely and was, perhaps, an improper second or successive § 2255 petition, it was denied.

Background

In 2011, Anjay Patel and others were named in a multi-count indictment charging conspiracy to traffic in contraband cigarettes, money laundering and a variety of related crimes. On Feb. Patel pled guilty to six felony counts pursuant to a written plea agreement. Patel was sentenced on Aug. 14, 2013, to 84 months imprisonment, two years supervised release and $2.6 million in restitution.

More than three years later, Patel filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court denied both arguments in the initial motion. While it was pending, however, Patel’s habeas counsel wrote a letter to the court claiming that since the time he filed his petition, additional claimed improprieties surrounding the use of an ATF management account associated with Big South Wholesale tobacco warehouse in Bristol, Virginia had surfaced. The court allowed Patel to amend his petition to raise a *Brady* claim.

Patel did not comply with the 30-day time limit, instead filing an amended petition on Feb. 25, 2019. In his amended petition, Patel argues that “the factual predicate for his claim was not discoverable until 2017, rather than 2013 at the time OIG released its report.” Patel based this argument on four sources of information. In a memorandum opinion entered on June 4, 2019, the court ruled that, because the amended petition raised no plausible claim of a *Brady* violation transcending the information contained in the 2013 OIG Report, it must be dismissed as untimely.

Patel thereafter filed a Rule 60(b) motion and a write of coram nobis. This court denied both. Patel has now filed another Rule 60(d) motion, contending that the government engaged in fraud on the court in responding to the letter and the amended petition.

Analysis

Patel alleges fraud on the court based on responses made by counsel for the United States to two documents filed on Patel’s behalf. Those documents are (1) a Jan. 18, 2028, letter to the court from Patel’s then habeas counsel and (2) Patel’s amended petition. In large measure, Patel alleges that the government engaged in fraud on the court by making certain statements in its pleadings seeking dismissal of his § 2255 Petition.

Considered in the light of the legal standard for claims of fraud on the court, Patel’s allegations do not measure up. First, many of the assertions with which Patel takes issue are not misrepresentations of fact upon which a fraud claim may be based. Second, Patel has not shown that he will be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the government’s statements contained false statements of fact. Instead, most of the government’s statements reflect its position regarding the sufficiency of Patel’s allegations, rather than affirmative statements of fact.

Patel’s claim of fraud on the court falls far short of the exacting standard required for a Rule 60(d)(3) claim. Nor is a Rule 60(b)(3) claim timely, as Rule 60(c)(1) requires that it be filed within one year, and Patel’s December 2024 motion was filed long past that deadline. Finally, to the extent Patel’s December 2024 motion is construed as a new

§ 2255 petition, it is a second or successive one and cannot proceed without certification from the Fourth Circuit, which has not been obtained.

Defendant’s motion for relief under Rule 60(d)(3) denied.

United States v. Patel, Case No. 5:11-cr-00031, April 28, 2026. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Urbanski).VLW 026-3-193. 36 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-193
Virginia Lawyers Weekly