UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-288

In re: JEREMIAH WELDON SLOAN,

Movant.

On Motion for Authorization to File Successive § 2255 Motion in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District 

Judge. (3:93-cr-00028-GCM-1)

Argued: March 19, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Motion denied by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the 

opinion, in which Judge Agee and Senior Judge Hamilton joined.

ARGUED: Noell Peter Tin, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Movant. William Michael Miller, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Jacob H. Sussman, TIN, FULTON, WALKER 

& OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Movant. Anne M. 

Tompkins, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

Jeremiah Sloan was convicted in 1994 on one count charging 

conspiracy to traffic in cocaine; one count charging possession 

of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it; and three 

counts charging possession of a firearm during and in relation 

to a drug trafficking crime. He was given a mandatory 

Guidelines sentence of life imprisonment plus 45 years. We 

affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. United States 

v. Sloan, No. 94-5924, 1996 WL 623231 (4th Cir. Oct. 29, 1996)

(per curiam).

Sloan’s participation in the conspiracy began when he was 

17 years old and continued until he was 20; his distribution 

offense was committed when he was 19; and his three firearms 

offenses were committed when he was 17. 

Following his convictions, Sloan filed four motions to 

vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, each of which the district 

court dismissed or denied. He also filed two motions for a 

sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on 

retroactively applicable amendments to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. These motions were granted, resulting in a 

reduction of his sentence to two 292-month concurrent terms of 

imprisonment for the drug trafficking convictions and three 
3

consecutive terms totaling 540 months for the three firearms 

offenses, for a total of 832 months’ imprisonment.

On June 24, 2013, Sloan filed the instant motion under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(h), seeking authorization to file a successive §

2255 motion based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. 

Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 

2455 (2012). In Graham, the Court held that the Eighth 

Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without parole for any 

juvenile offender (defined as one who was under the age of 18 at 

the time of the offense) who did not commit homicide. 560 U.S. 

at 74-75. Two years later, on June 25, 2012, the Court decided 

Miller, which extended Graham, holding that the Eighth Amendment 

also prohibits a mandatory sentence of life without parole for 

any juvenile offender who committed homicide. 132 S. Ct. at 

2469. In his proposed § 2255 motion, Sloan contended that his 

832-month sentence was the functional equivalent of a lifewithout-parole sentence and, therefore, violated the new rules 

of constitutional law established in Graham and Miller. After 

we requested briefing, Sloan narrowed the claim in his proposed 

§ 2255 motion to rely only on the new rule recognized by the 

Supreme Court in Miller.

In considering Sloan’s § 2255(h) motion for authorization, 

we assume without deciding that Sloan was a juvenile offender, 

as that term is used in Graham and Miller, and that his sentence 
4

of 832 months’ imprisonment was, in effect, a mandatory lifewithout-parole sentence. Nonetheless, for the reasons given in 

our decision issued today in In re Tadd Vassell, No. 13-284, __ 

F.3d __ (4th Cir. May __, 2014), we deny Sloan’s motion. As we

explained in Vassell, because Sloan challenges the 

constitutionality of his sentence for nonhomicide offenses based 

on his age at the time of those offenses, his proposed § 2255 

motion necessarily relies on the right that became available to 

him in 2010 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham, and not 

on Miller. Because Graham was decided more than one year before 

Sloan filed his § 2255(h) motion, his proposed § 2255 motion

would be barred by the applicable 1-year statute of limitations 

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). We therefore decline to authorize 

its filing.

MOTION DENIED