Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170131_0000060.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 03:58:37
Document Index: 519914239

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 371', '§ 201', '§ 1343', '§ 1956', '§ 1957', '§ 2255', '§ 2555', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

Petitioner, Eddie Pressley, has filed a counseled Motion To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His motion is entirely premised upon the (accepted as true for purposes of this analysis) failure of prior retained counsel to file a timely (or indeed, any) Motion To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He also asks this court to find that his motion is not time-barred because the same failure of prior retained counsel equitably tolled the statute of limitations. For the reasons set out below, this court finds that the motion is time-barred and therefore procedurally defaulted. Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. Further, he has not set out any claims that are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed with prejudice.
On March 2, 2011, Defendant Eddie Pressley (“Pressley”) was found guilty by a jury verdict of the following: one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); one count of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (Count Two); seven counts of depriving the public of its right to the honest services of a public official or employee through the use of the wires in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 (Counts Three through Ten); one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Eleven); and ten counts of engaging in monetary transactions with criminal proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts Twelve through Twenty-Two). On January 5, 2012, after ruling on various post-trial motions, this court sentenced Petitioner to a term of one hundred and forty-four months' imprisonment, followed by three years supervised release, and ordered forfeiture of $21 million. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on May 2, 2013.
A. The Petition Is Procedurally Defaulted Because It Is Untimely
Section 2255 enables a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction or sentence; however, there are procedural limitations on a § 2255 motion. Procedural default is one of those limitations. Generally, if a defendant does not raise an argument regarding his sentence on direct appeal, then he may not seek collateral review of his sentence by way of a § 2555 challenge. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003). “The procedural-default rule is neither a statutory nor a constitutional requirement, but it is a doctrine adhered to by the courts to conserve judicial resources and to respect the law's important interest in the finality of judgments.” (Id.).
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) was enacted on April 24, 1996, and, pertinent to this case, added a new subdivision to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 providing for a one-year period of limitations within which federal prisoners must file their motions to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 971 (2000).