Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_20-cr-60010/USCOURTS-arwd-6_20-cr-60010-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Redmon Logan
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

vs. Criminal No. 6:20-cr-60010 

Civil No. 6:23-cv-06087 

 

REDMON LOGAN MOVANT

 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Movant Redmon Logan (“Logan”)’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. ECF No. 53. Logan filed this Motion pro se. On

September 22, 2023, the Government responded to this Motion. ECF No. 57. No reply was filed. 

The Motion was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for 

the disposition of the case. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the response; and based upon 

that review, the Court recommends this Motion be DENIED. 

1. Procedural Background: 

On March 4, 2020, Logan was named in a single-count Indictment filed in the Western 

District of Arkansas. ECF No. 1. On October 13, 2020, Logan pled guilty to this count. ECF No. 

39. This Count provided as follows: 

On or about May 25, 2019, in the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs 

Division, the Defendant, REDMON LOGAN, knowing that he had been convicted 

of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did 

knowingly possess any one or more of the following firearms: Smith & Wesson, 

model SD9VE, 9mm caliber pistol, serial number FWR0417; Ruger, model SR9, 

9mm caliber pistol, serial number 330-21397; JRC, model JR carbine, 9mm caliber 

rifle, serial number JRCV065243, which had been shipped and transported in 

interstate commerce. 

ECF No. 1 at 1. 

Case 6:20-cr-60010-SOH Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

After Logan’s Plea Agreement was submitted, a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 

was prepared, and a final PSR was filed on December 28, 2020. ECF No. 45. In this PSR, Logan 

was assigned a base level offense of 22 with a four-point increase for specific offense 

characteristics. Id. ¶¶ 38-40. Logan received a three-point reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility, which yielded a total offense level of 23. Id. ¶ 48. Logan was determined to be in 

criminal history category VI. Id. ¶ 170. Logan’s United States Sentencing Guidelines 

recommended term of imprisonment was found to be 92 to 115 months. Id. ¶ 172. 

On October 5, 2021, Logan appeared before the Honorable Susan O. Hickey and was 

sentenced to 92 months imprisonment with credit for time served in federal custody, 3 years 

supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. ECF No. 51. The judgment was entered on 

October 6, 2021. Id. On July 21, 2023, Logan filed a pro se Motion for Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. ECF No. 53. The Government responded to this Motion on September 22, 2023. ECF No. 

57. In this response, the Government claims Logan’s Motion is barred because it was untimely 

filed, and Logan has no excuse for his delay. ECF No. 57. Accordingly, the Government claims 

Logan’s Motion must be dismissed. Id. 

2. Applicable Law: 

A § 2255 motion is fundamentally different from a direct appeal. The Court will not 

reconsider an issue, which was decided on direct appeal, in a motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255. 

See United States v. Davis, 406 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2005); Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 

572 (8th Cir.1992) (“Claims which were raised and decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated 

on a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .”). 

“Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and 

for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, 

Case 6:20-cr-60010-SOH Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th 

Cir. 1996). 

3. Discussion: 

The Government claims Logan’s Motion should be dismissed because it was untimely 

filed. Upon review, the Court agrees with the Government and finds Logan’s Motion should be 

dismissed because it was untimely filed. 

A. One-Year Statute of Limitations 

On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter 

“AEDPA”) was signed into law. A one-year statute of limitations was enacted for motions to 

vacate, set aside or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In general, under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)(1), a movant for collateral relief has one year from “the date on which the judgment 

became final” to file a motion challenging his conviction. 

In the present action, the Court entered a judgment in Logan’s case on October 6, 2021. 

ECF No. 51. The judgment became final on October 20, 2021, when 14 days passed without an 

appeal being filed. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (indicating a defendant in a criminal case has 

14 days to file a notice of appeal). Thus, to timely file a § 2255 Motion, Logan had one year from 

that date or until October 20, 2022. In the present action, Logan filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on July 

21, 2023. ECF No. 53. Thus, it was untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). 

Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the one-year statute of limitations also may begin to 

run from “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.” In the present action, Logan references a decision by the Third Circuit 

as providing him a basis for relief. See Range v. Attorney General United States of America, 69 

Case 6:20-cr-60010-SOH Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

F.4th 96 (3rd Cir. 2023). This case, however, does not trigger 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because it 

was not decided by the Supreme Court. Logan has supplied no Supreme Court case that would 

trigger the applicable time-period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), and this Court finds no such precedent. 

Accordingly, Logan’s Motion is time-barred. Unless an exception to this statute of limitations 

applies, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of his Motion. 

B. Equitable Tolling 

Logan’s claims are barred by the limitations period unless he can establish the period was 

tolled. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions but only where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the 

following: (1) if there are “extraordinary circumstances” beyond a movant’s control that would 

keep the movant from filing in a timely fashion; or (2) if the government’s conduct “lulled” the 

movant into inaction through reliance on that conduct. United States v. Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851, 

858 (8th Cir. 2006). Equitable tolling only applies when the circumstances that cause the delay in 

filing are external to the movant and not attributable to his or her actions. Id. The movant has the 

burden of establishing that equitable tolling should apply. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 

418 (2015) (holding that a petitioner asserting a right to equitable tolling bears the burden of 

establishing both elements of the doctrine). 

In the present action, Logan does not provide any basis for equitable tolling, and the Court 

cannot find one. In his Motion, Logan’s only basis for relief is that his sentence “violates the 

Second Amendment of the United States Constitution” because it limits his ability to keep and 

bear arms. ECF No. 53. Equitable tolling only applies when the circumstances that cause the 

delay in filing are external to the movant and not attributable to his actions. See United States v. 

Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851, 858 (8th Cir. 2006). Logan has the burden of establishing that equitable 

Case 6:20-cr-60010-SOH Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

tolling applies. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 418 (holding that a petitioner asserting a right to equitable 

tolling bears the burden of establishing both elements of the doctrine). Based upon the Parties’ 

briefing and the facts before the Court, there is no basis for equitable tolling. 

4. Conclusion: 

 Logan’s Motion is time-barred under the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations. At the 

very latest, he was required to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion by October 20, 2022. Here, Logan 

waited to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion until July 21, 2023. Logan has supplied no basis to 

apply equitable tolling to excuse his delay. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over this Motion. 

5. Recommendation: 

 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court recommends the instant Motion (ECF No. 

53) be DENIED and dismissed with prejudice.1 The Court further recommends no Certificate of 

Appealability issue in this matter. 

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). 

DATED this 29th day of November 2023.

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant 

 HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 "A federal court may dismiss a claim without an evidentiary hearing where the allegations are 

frivolous, where the allegations fail to state a constitutional claim, where the relevant facts are 

not in dispute, or where the dispute can be resolved on the basis of the record." Urquhart v. 

Lockhart, 726 F.2d 1316, 1318-19 (8th Cir.1984).

Case 6:20-cr-60010-SOH Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>