ABEL CARRERA CONTRERAS 85288 279 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2026)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Proceeding pro se, Abel Carrera-Contreras filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Dkt. 1. The motion, which was referred to me for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition, should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Carrera-Contreras pled guilty to illegal reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), Crim. ECF Dkts. 22–26, and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release, Crim. ECF Dkts. 30–32. He appealed his sentence, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Carrera-Contreras, No. 24-40392, 2024 WL 4764274 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2024); Dkt. 38.

Carrera-Contreras now seeks an extension of time to file his § 2255 motion. Dkt. 1. He states that his “appointed counsel never advised [him] of the outcome of [ ]his appeal until [his] family members contacted the Public Defender's Office” and that he did not receive the appeal documents until February 2, 2026. Dkt. 1 at 1. His motion for an extension does not present any specific grounds for relief under § 2255.

DISCUSSION

Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 597 (2007). As a result, the exercise of jurisdiction “depends on the existence of a case or controversy, and a federal court lacks the power to render advisory opinions.” U.S. Nat'l Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (quotation marks omitted) (cleaned up). Federal courts “do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse parties before [them].” Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 (1982); see also United States v. Cook, 795 F. 2d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 1986). Although § 2255's limitations period is subject to equitable and statutory tolling in certain circumstances, a court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 motion until the motion is filed. See United States v. Bautista, 548 F. App'x 254 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. McFarland, 125 F. App'x 573 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2005); United States v. Shipman, 61 F. App'x 919, 2003 WL 1111561 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2003).

Carrera-Contreras has not filed a § 2255 motion or asserted any grounds for review. His motion requesting an extension of time to file a § 2255 is, in essence, a request for an impermissible advisory opinion as to whether a § 2255 motion filed after the limitations period expired would be viable.

For that reason, the court lacks jurisdiction over Carrera-Contreras's extension motion. When he is prepared to file a § 2255 motion, he may do so. He may at that point present an argument as to why the running of the limitations period was tolled.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the motion for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion, Dkt. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

* * *

Within 14 days after service of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 10 to 14 days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of May, 2026

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge