Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-08015/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-08015-0/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIRK V. MAXWELL,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-08015-VEH

 (2:12-cr-00210-VEH-JHE)

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, Kirk V. Maxwell, has filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Doc. 1).

1

 An evidentiary hearing is not

needed, nor is a response needed by the Government.2 Having fully considered all

1 Although the Motion was filed as docket entry 52 in the associated criminal

case, 2:12-cr-00210-VEH-JHE, and was entitled “In Re: Case No. 2:12-CR00210(VEH)” and purports to invoke FED.R.CIV.P. 44 and the “Judicature Act of

1873", it seeks Petitioner’s release from custody. (Doc. 1). Accordingly, the

undersigned directed that it be docketed as a Motion To Vacate Under 28 USC §

2255. (Docket entry dated 3/16/2016 in 2:12-cr-00210-VEH-JHE). When it was

redocketed as instructed in that criminal case, it was assigned docket entry 54.

Thus, docket entry 52 in the criminal case is hereby TERMED as MOOT in light

of docket entry 54 in that case.

2 Although the court entered an Order for the Government to show cause why

the Motion should not be granted (doc. 2), no such response is needed in light of the

FILED

 2016 Mar-22 AM 11:30

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 7
relevant pleadings in this case, and in the related criminal case (United States v.

Kirk V. Maxwell, 2:12-cr-00210-VEH-JHE), the undersigned finds that Petitioner’s

2255 motion is due to be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY3

On April 6, 2012, a grand jury sitting in the Northern District of Alabama

returned a two-count indictment against Petitioner charging him with two counts of

attempted enticement of a child who had not obtained the age of 18 years to engage

in sexual activity for which the defendant can be charged with a criminal offense in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). (Doc. 4) On July 20,

2012, Petitioner plead guilty to Count One only. (Court Entry 7/20/2012). Petitioner

filed with the court a signed Guilty Plea Advice of Rights Certification (doc. 34 and

a signed Plea Agreement (doc. 35). Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the

Government agreed to move to dismiss Count Two at sentencing. (Id.).

On November 1, 2012, the undersigned sentenced Petitioner to a custodial

term of 120 months. Following the imposition of sentence, Petitioner did not pursue

a direct appeal.

wholly procedural determination of this case based upon the record proceedings in

this court. Accordingly, such Order To Show Cause is hereby VACATED.

3All references to the record in this portion of this Opinion are to the related

criminal case, 2:12-cr-00210-VEH-JHE, unless otherwise indicated.

2

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 7
On February 23, 2016, Petitioner filed the motion now pending before the

court. Petitioner remains in custody at this time. (Doc. 52).

II. THE 2255 PETITION

4

In his Petition, Petitioner asserts various “facts” relating to his status as “a

private citizen of the United States of America by natural birth” (e.g. doc. 1 at 1),

“depriv[ation of] substantive due process rights,” (id. at 2), and fraud by the United

States by “not providing full disclosure of the State-created ‘Corporate Sole’ in the

name of KIRK V. MAXWELL and their deceptive trust practices in creating a

‘Constructive Trust’ by which to trick, entrap, and deprive private citizen, KirkVincent Maxwell, the natural person, from his unalienable Right to life, liberty and

property, including guaranteed entitlements, immunities and protections conferred

by the Constitution of the united States of America as a direct result of his natural

birth” (id.)(emphasis, capitalization, grammar, and spelling in original). Petitioner

alleges that, as a result, he is “wrongfully and unjustly imprisoned in the FEDERAL

BUREAU OF PRISONS” (id. at 4)(capitalization in original). For relief, he asks

this court to order his release and expunge his records. (Id. at 5).

A. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER § 2255

4All references to the record in this portion of this Opinion are to the filings in

this §2255 proceeding, unless otherwise indicated.

3

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 7
The Anti–Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)

was enacted on April 24, 1996, and, pertinent to this case, added a new subdivision

to 28 U.S.C. 2255 providing for a one-year period of limitations within which

federal prisoners must file their motions to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Akins

v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 971, 121

S.Ct. 410, 148 L.Ed.2d 316 (2000).

A 1–year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.

The limitation period shall run from the latest 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 the 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.

28 U.S.C. 2255(f).

B. ANALYSIS

Petitioner makes no argument, and presents no facts, in favor of the court’s

application of subsections (2), (3), and (4) of 2255(f). Thus, the timeliness of the

4

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 7
pending motion is calculated under 2255(f)(1) based upon the date on which a

petitioner's judgment of conviction became final. In this case, the undersigned

entered its Judgment of Conviction on November 1, 2012. (Doc. 43, case no. 2:12-

cr-00210-VEH-JHE). Petitioner did not appeal, and therefore his conviction became

final on November 15, 2012. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). See Akins v. United States, 204

F.3d 1086. Because the pending petition fails to raise any issue that is not subject to

this one-year limitation period, the petition is time-barred.

III. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 2255 Proceedings, the court

finds that a certificate of appealability in this case is not well-founded, and any

application for one is due to be denied. 28 U.S.C. foll. 2255, Rule 11(a) (“The

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.”). The habeas corpus statute makes clear that an

applicant is entitled to appeal a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition

only where a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

2253(c)(1). A certificate of appealability may issue only where “the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

2243(c)(2). Where, as here, a habeas petition is being denied in its entirety on

procedural grounds without reaching the merits of an underlying constitutional

5

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 5 of 7
claim, “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows ... that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484, 120 S .Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Given the applicability of the

one-year limitations period in this case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that

this Court is in error for dismissing Petitioner’s motion to vacate, nor could a

reasonable jurist conclude that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further with

respect to his claims. Id., 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. at 1604 (“Where a plain

procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of

the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in

dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.”).

Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

IV. CONCLUSION

The instant Motion is dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2255(f)(1). Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability and, therefore,

he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

6

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 6 of 7
DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of March, 2016.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

7

Case 2:16-cv-08015-VEH Document 3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 7 of 7