Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00593/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00593-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

1

“Section 105 amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255, establishing a one-year ‘period of limitation’ for

motions filed pursuant to § 2255.” Goodman v. United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1336 (11th Cir. 1998).

This section became effective on April 24, 1996. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ALDRIC HARRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No. 3:07cv593-MEF

) (WO) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the United States has filed a response (Doc. No.

3) addressing the applicability of the period of limitation to the motion to vacate under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 that was filed by federal inmate Aldric Harris (“Harris”) on June 22, 2007.

In its response, the government argues that Harris’s motion is barred by the one-year period

of limitation applicable to motions filed under 28 U.S.C. §2255. See § 105 of the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).1

 Specifically, the government

asserts that Harris’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm became final on

May 9, 2006 – 10 days after the district court’s entry of Judgment, as no direct appeal was

filed – and that the instant § 2255 motion was filed after expiration of the one-year period

Case 3:07-cv-00593-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
2

of limitation. See “United States’ Response to § 2255 Motion” (Doc. No. 3) at 2-4.

Paragraph 6 of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 specifies that the one-year period of limitation begins

from the latest date of 

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by

governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United

States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such

governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the

Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court

and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

On January 31, 2006, Harris pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He was sentenced on April 26, 2006. See “Criminal Docket for Case No. 3:05cr223-LSC.”

The district court entered Judgment on April 28, 2006. Id. Harris did not file a direct appeal

of his conviction. By operation of law, then, his conviction became final on May 8, 2006,

upon expiration of the time for him to file a direct appeal (i.e., 10 days after the district

court’s entry of Judgment). Thus, Harris had until May 8, 2007, to file a timely § 2255

motion. The instant motion, however, was not filed until June 22, 2007. 

It does not appear that any of § 2255’s exceptions to application of the limitation

period are applicable in this case. Specifically, Harris’s claims do not rest on an alleged

“right [which] has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively

Case 3:07-cv-00593-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
3

applicable to cases on collateral review.” Moreover, the court notes that the government has

not prevented Harris from filing an earlier motion nor has Harris submitted any grounds for

relief that could not have been put forth earlier under the exercise of due diligence such that

the limitation period begins to run at a time other than upon the finality of his conviction.

Under the circumstances of this case as outlined herein, it appears to the court that the

one-year period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 expired prior to Harris’s filing

his motion to vacate. Accordingly it is

ORDERED that on or before August 23, 2007, Harris shall show cause why his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion should not be dismissed as it was not filed within the one-year

limitation period established by the AEDPA.

Done this 2nd day of August, 2007.

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00593-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3