United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
18, 2013, the Court sentenced defendant to 144 months in
prison. This matter is before the Court on
Defendant's Motion To Inspect Under 28 U.S. Code
§ 1861 Et Seq. (Doc. #307) filed April 30, 2018.
For reasons stated below, the Court overrules defendant's
seeks to inspect jury records so that he can raise a
challenge to jury selection procedures in this case. The Jury
Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1861
et seq., provides in pertinent part as follows:
“It is the policy of the United States that all
litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall
have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random
from a fair cross section of the community in the district or
division wherein the court convenes.” 28 U.S.C. §
1861. The Jury Act's fair cross section requirement
parallels a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by
an impartial jury. United States v. Shinault, 147
F.3d 1266, 1270 (10th Cir. 1988); see Taylor v.
Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 526-31 (1975).
court litigants have “essentially an unqualified right
to inspect jury lists” to aid in preparing motions to
challenge jury selection procedures. Test v. United
States, 420 U.S. 28, 30 (1975); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1867. To challenge the jury selection procedures in a
criminal case, however, defendant must file a motion to
dismiss “before the voir dire examination begins, or
within seven days after [he or she] discovered or could have
discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds
therefor, whichever is earlier.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1867(a) (emphasis added). Because defendant's
statutory challenge would be untimely, he is not entitled to
inspect jury records in an attempt to find support for such a
claim. United States v. Sanders, 368 Fed.Appx. 870,
872 (10th Cir. 2010).
also apparently seeks to raise a constitutional challenge to
his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which potentially
could be raised despite his failure to timely challenge the
jury selection procedure under Section 1867.
Defendant's Motion To Inspect (Doc. #307) at 3;
see United States v. Green, 435 F.3d 1265, 1269-70
(10th Cir. 2006) (whether failure to comply with time limits
under Jury Act bars Sixth Amendment challenge presents
difficult issue); 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) (procedures
prescribed by section shall be exclusive means by which
person accused of Federal crime, Attorney General or party in
civil case may challenge jury on ground that it was not
selected in conformity with provisions of this title). The
deadline to file a Section 2255 motion passed some 30 months
In addition, defendant previously filed a Section 2255 motion
so any successive motion must meet the stringent gatekeeping
requirements of Section 2255(h). Defendant has not explained
how he could satisfy any statutory exception to the one-year
limitation period or the bar on second or successive motions.
Absent viable means to raise a constitutional challenge to
the jury selection procedure, defendant has no need to
inspect jury records. Sanders, 368 Fed.Appx. at 873.
Therefore the Court overrules defendant's request.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion
To Inspect Under 28 U.S. Code § 1861 Et Seq. (Doc.
#307) filed April 30, 2018 is OVERRULED.
 The Court declines to construe
defendant's present motion as a motion to vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 because defendant only seeks information
to support a potential challenge to his conviction and
 Section 2255 provides a one-year
period of limitation which ordinarily runs from the date on
which the judgment of conviction becomes final. See
28 U.S.C. § 2255. On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court
denied defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari.
See United States v. McIntosh, 135 S.Ct. 768 (2014).
Therefore, defendant had until December 8, 2015 to file his
Section 2255 motion or any amendments thereto.
 A second or successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 may be filed in the district court only if
the court of appeals certifies that the motion is based on
(1) newly discovered evidence that if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole would establish by clear and
convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found defendant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on ...