Andres Mencia v. United States

── Andres Mencia v. United States ── Case No.: 25-11033 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11033 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11033 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANDRES MENCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:24-cv-62261-WPD ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-11033 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11033 Andres Mencia, a former physician, appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction for conspiracy to dispense con- trolled substances without a legitimate medical purpose, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appeal- ability to address whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address Mencia’s argument that his motion was timely based on an inter- vening change in law. Because his timeliness argument fails as a matter of law, we affirm. After we affirmed Mencia’s conviction on remand from the Supreme Court, our mandate issued on February 1, 2023. In No- vember 2024—more than one year later—Mencia filed a motion to vacate that conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that the motion was timely because Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), and United States v. Duldulao, 87 F.4th 1239 (11th Cir. 2023), constituted intervening changes in law. The district court denied the motion as untimely and, alternatively, on the merits, without addressing the Ruan and Duldulao argument. A district court must resolve all constitutional claims raised in a motion to vacate to ensure a full record for appellate review. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935–938; see also Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (applying Clisby in a section 2255 pro- ceeding). Although a failure to do so ordinarily requires us to va- cate the judgment and remand for further consideration, see Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1298–1299 (11th Cir. 2013), a remand is USCA11 Case: 25-11033 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 3 of 3 25-11033 Opinion of the Court 3 unnecessary here because Mencia’s timeliness argument fails as a matter of law. A motion to vacate must generally be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). That limitations period may restart under section 2255(f)(3) when the Supreme Court recognizes a new right and makes it retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See id. § 2255(f)(3). Mencia argues that he benefits from that alter- native limitations period, but we disagree. Neither Ruan nor Duldulao triggers this alternative limita- tions period. The Supreme Court decided Ruan in 2022, before Men- cia’s conviction became final in 2023. A Supreme Court decision issue