NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0291n.06 No. 11-6015 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T SHON PATRI CK TAYL OR, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY

BEF ORE: MARTI

N, SUHRHEI

NRI CH, and COL E, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Shon Patrick Taylor, who is repr esente d by counsel, appea ls a district court order deny ing a s untimely

his moti on to vaca

te his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to a written plea ag ree ment, Taylor pleade d g uilty to posse ssion with the intent to distribute five g rams or more of coca ine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), and possession of a firea rm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1)

. The district court sentenc ed Taylor to 188 months of imprisonment followed by four y ear s of supervised rele ase. Tay lor did not appea l the district court’s judg ment, which wa s entere d on Marc h 12, 2007. On J anuar y 11, 2011, Tay

lor submitt ed for mailing a post-judgme nt motion, p u r p o r te d ly f il ed pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil Procedur e 60(b)( 4). After advising Tay lor that Rule 60 does not apply t o cr i m i n al actions and that section 2255 provides the exclusive reme dy for challeng ing aNo. 11-6015

Taylor v. United States fede ral conviction or sentenc e, the district court g ave Taylor thirty day s to file a section 2255 motion or have his Rule 60(b)( 4) m otion rec hara cter ized as a se ction 2255 motion to vacate. Taylor then filed a section 2255 motion in which he claimed that his plea ag ree ment was void beca use it lacke d consideration and mutual assent. He also arg ued that his attorney provided ineffe cti v e assistance reg arding contra ct law. Wit h respe ct to the timeliness of his motion, Taylor asser ted that there was

a “conf lict” betwee n the six -y ear statute of limit ations for contra ct actions and the one-y ear statute of limit ations under section 2255(f)

. He arg ued that the limit ations period should not beg in to run

or should be equitably tolled until he discovere d the fra ud perpe trated on him by the g overnme nt and defe nse counsel. The district court order ed T ay l o r to show cause why his motion should not be dismiss ed as barr ed by the one-y ear statute of limit ations under section 2255(f)

. Taylor responde d that “[t] here can be no limit ations on fra ud.” Concluding that Taylor failed to demonstrate that his motion was timely under section 2255(f) and that h e fa iled to alleg e fac ts to war rant equitable tolling, the district cour

t denied Ta

y lor’s sec tion 2255 moti on. I n revie wing the denial of Tay lor’s section 2255 motion, “we revie w the district court’s leg al conclusions de novo and it s fac tual finding s for clear err or.” Jamieson v. United S t a t es , 692 F.3d 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2012). Tay lor first contends that the di strict court erre d in sua spont e dis missing hi s section 2255 motion as untimely

. The district court proper ly denied Taylor’s section 2255 motion on timeliness g rounds beca

use the court may sua sponte dismiss a m o t i o n as b ar red by the applicable one-y ear statute of limitations. See D ay v. M cDonough , 547 U.S. 198, 209–10 (2006).

-2-No. 11-6015

Taylor v. United States The district court conclude d that Taylor’s section 2255 motion was time-barr ed beca use he failed to file the motion within one y ear of t h e d at e on which his judgme nt of conviction beca me final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) (1). Taylor does not dispu t e t h at h i s section 2255 motion was untimely under section 2255(f) (1). I nst ea d , h e co n tends that the district court err ed in failing to consider whether his motion was timely under section 225 5(f) (4), which provides a one-y ear limit ations period from “the date on which the fac ts supporting the claim or claims prese nted could have been discovere d throug h the exercise of due diligenc e.” Taylor failed to cite section 2255(f) (4)

or prese nt any newly discovere d fac ts in his section 2255 motion. Taylor asser ted t h at , “throug h diligent study , and limit ed law resour ces and the help of but a single law cler k, [he] was ab l e t o understand the application of contra ct law that has uncover ed the duty and obliga tion of contra ct and the conspirac y by g overnme nt and defe nse counsel.” Taylor’s “discove ry of a new leg al theory does not constitute a discovera

ble ‘fa ct’ for purposes of § 2255(f) (4).” Barreto-Barreto v. United States , 551 F.3d 95, 99 n.4 ( 1st Cir. 2008). Tay lor arg ues that the district court failed to g ive adequate consideration to his g rounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limit ations. He contends that he pursued his rig hts diligently , but

a lack of leg al resour ces preve nted him fro m timely filing his section 2255 motion. I nadequate prison leg al resour ces, without more, do not const i tute extraordinary circ umstances war ranting equitable tolling. See J

ones v. U nited States , 689 F.3d 621, 627 ( 6th Cir. 2012). The district cour

t’s order is affirme d.

-3-