Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00171/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00171-5/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

Edwards styled his pleading (Doc. No. 1) as a “Motion for Judicial Notice Rule 201 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(2)(A) Extraordinary and

Compelling Reasons for Sentence Reduction.” However, this court has construed his motion as one

for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

2

The government also argues that all of Moultry’s claims, with the exception of his

allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, are barred by a waiver provision contained in the

plea agreement. See “United States’ Response to § 2255 Motion” (Doc. No. 13) at 8-9. The

government asserts that Moultry’s allegations of ineffective assistance fail to establish his

entitlement to any relief and should be rejected as lacking merit. Id. at 16-19. In addition, the

government argues that Moultry’s non-ineffective assistance claims are meritless and are

procedurally barred because they were not raised on direct appeal. Id. at 10-15 & 19-20.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FRANK JAMES EDWARDS, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No. 2:07cv171-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.

13) addressing the claims in the motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by federal

inmate Frank James Edwards (“Edwards”).1

 In its response, the government argues, inter

alia,

2

 that Edwards’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 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death

Case 2:07-cv-00171-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 11/06/07 Page 1 of 4
3

“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. 

2

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).3

 Specifically, the government asserts that the convictions Edwards

challenges by his motion became final on September 24, 2004 – 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 of limitation. See “United States’ Response

to § 2255 Motion” (Doc. No. 13) at 9-10.

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.

Edwards entered his guilty plea on May 24, 2004, and sentence was imposed on

August 31, 2004. See “Criminal Docket for Case No. 2:04cr08-MEF.” The district court

entered Judgment on September 14, 2004. Id. Edwards did not file a direct appeal of his

convictions. By operation of law, then, his convictions became final on September 24, 2004,

Case 2:07-cv-00171-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 4
4

Although Edwards’s motion was date-stamped “received” in this court on February 26,

2007, under the “mailbox rule,” the court deems his motion filed on the date he delivered it to prison

authorities for mailing, presumptively, February 8, 2007, the day that he signed it. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.

2001).

3

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

court’s entry of Judgment). See Ramirez v. United States, (No. 05-10010) 2005 WL 1706142

(11th Cir. July 22, 2005) (unpublished). Thus, Edwards had until September 26, 2005 (the

first business day after September 24, 2005), to file a timely § 2255 motion. The instant

§ 2255 motion, however, was not filed until February 8, 2007.4

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

period are applicable in this case. Specifically, Edwards’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, it does not appear that the government

prevented Edwards from filing an earlier motion, and Edwards has not 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 Edwards’s filing

his motion to vacate. Accordingly it is

ORDERED that on or before November 28, 2007, Edwards shall show cause why

Case 2:07-cv-00171-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 4
4

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion should not be dismissed because it was not filed within the oneyear limitation period established by the AEDPA or for the other reasons asserted by the

government.

Done this 6th day of November, 2007.

 /s/Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00171-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 11/06/07 Page 4 of 4