Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00212/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00212-1/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

---

“Section 105 amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255, establishing a one-year ‘period of limitation’ for 1

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

This section became effective on April 24, 1996. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMETRIOUS TERRELL PEGUES, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:10cv212-WKW

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

On February 23, 2010, federal inmate Demetrious Terrell Pegues (“Pegues ”), acting

pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

By his motion, Pegues challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on him by this court

in 2008 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. This court

directed the government to file a limited response addressing the applicability of § 2255’s

one-year limitation period to Pegues’s motion, see § 105 of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). In its response (Doc. No. 8), the government argues that 1

Pegues’s § 2255 motion was filed after expiration of the one-year period of limitation and

is therefore time-barred.

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

from the latest date of 

Case 2:10-cv-00212-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 3
See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1) (defendant’s notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed in 2

the district court within ten days after entry of the district court’s judgment); Mederos v. United

States, 218 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11 Cir. 2000) (for a defendant who does not file a direct appeal, the th

conviction becomes final ten days after the district court’s judgment is entered); see also SanchezCastellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424, 427-28 (6 Cir. 2004) (a federal criminal judgment that th

is not appealed becomes final for the purpose of § 2255 ten days after it is entered, when the time

for filing a direct appeal expires). 

Pegues represents that he signed his original pleading on February 23, 2010. Applying the 3

“mailbox rule,” and no evidence to the contrary, this court deems his motion as filed on that date.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299,

1301 (11 Cir. 2001). th

2

(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.

The pleadings and court records reflect that Pegues was convicted under a guilty plea

entered on October 22, 2007, and that he was sentenced on September 10, 2008. (Doc. No.

1-2.) The district court entered its judgment against Pegues on September 17, 2008. (Id.)

Pegues did not file a direct appeal. By operation of law, then, Pegues’s conviction became

final on September 29, 2008, the first business day after September 27, 2008. Thus, Pegues 2

had until September 29, 2009, to file a timely § 2255 motion. The instant motion was not

filed until February 23, 2010.3

Case 2:10-cv-00212-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 3
3

It does not appear that any of the statutory exceptions specified in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

¶ 6 (2)-(4) apply in this case. Specifically, Pegues’s claims do not rest on an alleged “right

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

to cases on collateral review.” Moreover, there is no suggestion that the government

prevented Pegues from filing an earlier motion. Nor does Pegues appear to have submitted

grounds for relief that could not have been put forth earlier under the exercise of due

diligence such that the limitation period should begin 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 before Pegues filed his

§ 2255 motion. Accordingly it is

ORDERED that on or before June 28, 2010, Pegues 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 7 day of June, 2010. th

 /s/Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00212-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 3