Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03149/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Harrison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3149

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Rodney Harrison, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2006

Filed: November 30, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

This court previously affirmed Rodney L. Harrison's sentence of 168 months.

United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2005). While that appeal was

pending, Harrison moved to correct, vacate, or set aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. The district court denied the motion, without an evidentiary hearing.

Harrison requested to amend his motion to assert ineffective assistance of counsel in

the failure to raise the ex post facto claim during sentencing. The district court denied

the motion to amend, without comment. This court reverses and remands. 

Appellate Case: 05-3149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114051
-2-

The district court denied the original 2255 motion on June 13, 2005. That same

day, Harrison alleges, he placed the amended motion in the institution's outgoing legal

mail. Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se pleading is deemed filed upon deposit

in the prison mail system prior to the expiration of the filing deadline. Moore v.

United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999); Grady v. United States, 269 F.3d

913, 916 (8th Cir. 2001).

In its brief, the government argues that the amended motion was untimely

because judgment on the original motion had already been entered. The electronic

record indicates that the original motion was denied at 2:40 p.m. and the judgment

was entered at 2:44 p.m. on June 13. The record does not indicate the precise time

Harrison claims he filed his amended motion. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern 2255 motions. United States v.

Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851, 856-57 (8th Cir. 2006). If Harrison's amended motion was

deemed filed before judgment was entered, Rule 15(a) controls the request to amend

the original motion. See Wilburn v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 492 F.2d 1288, 1290

(8th Cir. 1974); 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §

1489 (2d ed. 1990). If, on the other hand, the amended motion was deemed filed after

judgment was entered, Rules 59 and 60 govern the request to amend the original

motion. See Wilburn, 492 F.2d at 1290.

Denial of a 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing will be affirmed "only

if the motions, files, and record conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief."

28 U.S.C. § 2255; see Buster v. United States, 447 F.3d 1130, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006);

Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992). The record here is

not conclusive. The record does not indicate whether the amended motion was filed

before or after judgment on the original motion. See Grady, 269 F.3d at 919. The

judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114051