Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090115_0000066.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 03:12:59
Document Index: 446971044

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 3582']

| Sylvester v. United States
SHAUNESSY REGINA SYLVESTER, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 6).
Petitioner was found guilty, after a jury trial, of one count of possessing with intent to distribute "crack cocaine" in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. On March 31, 1994, Petitioner was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal on October 2, 1995. United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 2, 1995. Ashley v. United States, 516 U.S. 888 (1995).
Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Petitioner filed motions in the underlying criminal case, United States v. Sylvester, No. 92-cr-40065 (S.D. Ill.), seeking to have her conviction overturned or her sentence reduced. In denying Petitioner's motions, the Court noted that the only relief available to Petitioner was a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court directed the Clerk to mail Petitioner § 2255 forms.
On April 27, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 motion. On October 20, 2006, however, the Court summarily dismissed the instant § 2255 motion finding that it was time barred.
Judgment was entered in this action on October 20, 2006, but the instant motion was not filed until January 3, 2007, well after the 10-day period expired. See FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e). Therefore, as a Rule 59(e) motion, the motion is time-barred.
In this motion, Petitioner asserts that her § 2255 should not have been summarily dismissed because she filed it according to the Court's directions. Furthermore, Petitioner asserts that since the her § 2255 motion asserts claims concerning her constitutional rights, the time limitations for filing a § 2255 case do not apply to her action.
While it is true that the Court invited Petitioner to file a § 2255 motion after her post-judgment motions in the underlying criminal case were denied, nothing in those prior orders states -or should have been interpreted as indicating - that a § 2255 motion would be successful. Rather, the Court intended only to convey that Petitioner was not pursuing her claims through the proper channels. In light of doctrines such as equitable tolling, any consideration by this Court of the timeliness of a future § 2255 motion (if any) filed by Petitioner would have been premature.
Of course, Petitioner did file the instant § 2255 motion and this Court did find that it was time barred. Petitioner's argument that a § 2255 action asserting a constitutional violation can never be time barred is without merit. Furthermore, these arguments do not suggest clerical mistake; instead, these arguments challenge the Court's application of the law to the facts alleged in the § 2255 motion, which may be addressed in a direct appeal. Therefore, Plaintiff has not presented any argument warranting relief under Rule 60(b), and the instant motion (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
The Court notes that, based on retroactive changes made to the Sentencing Guidelines, Petitioner filed a motion to modify her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The § 3582 motion is currently pending in Petitioner's underlying criminal case and the Court has appointed counsel to represent Petitioner in that matter.