UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-65-TLS

)

CAMERON PATTERSON )

OPINION AND ORDER

On September 10, 2015, this Court sentenced the Defendant, Cameron Patterson, on his

plea of guilty for armed bank robbery. Thereafter, he filed an unsuccessful appeal of the Court’s

denial of his pretrial motion to suppress, which he had reserved the right to do in his plea

agreement with the Government. The Defendant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari. On

August 28, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [ECF No. 207]. The Court directed the

Government to file a response to the Defendant’s Motion. 

On October 30, 2017, the Government responded, requesting that the Court deny the

Defendant’s Motion as untimely filed. Under § 2255(f), a one-year period of limitation runs from

the latest of several dates. The relevant trigger in this case is “the date on which the judgment of

conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). According to the Government, the one-year

period began to run on June 14, 2016, when the court of appeals issued its judgment affirming

the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress. 

If that were correct, the Defendant’s August 28, 2017, Motion would indeed be untimely. 

But the Government’s calculation is erroneous. It does not take into account that, when a

defendant does not seek certiorari, his federal conviction becomes final under § 2255(f)(1) with

the expiration of the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Clay v. United
States, 537 U.S. 522, 525 (2003) (“For the purpose of starting the clock on § 2255’s one-year

limitation period, we hold, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for

filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court’s affirmation of the conviction.”); see

also Flowers v. United States, 560 F. Supp. 2d 710, 714 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (rejecting the

government’s argument that the defendant’s habeas motion was untimely because the

government’s calculation was based on the date the court of appeals affirmed his conviction

rather than ninety days later “when the time for filing a petition to contest the appellate court’s

decision expire[d]”).

Under Supreme Court Rule 13(1), a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment

must be filed within ninety days after entry of the judgment. Sup. Ct. R. 13(1). Moreover, “[t]he

time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of entry of the judgment or order

sought to be reviewed, and not from the issuance date of the mandate.” Sup. Ct. R. 13(3). For the

Defendant’s motion to be timely under § 2255(f)(1), the motion must have been filed no more

than one year and ninety days after the Seventh Circuit entered its final judgment on his appeal,

that is, by September 12, 2017. Thus, the Defendant’s August 28, 2017, Motion is timely.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 207] remains UNDER

ADVISEMENT, and the Government is directed to respond to the Defendant’s Motion as if it

were timely filed. The Government’s response is to be filed by December 1, 2017. The

Defendant’s reply deadline is January 5, 2018.

SO ORDERED on November 1, 2017.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2