Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161103_0001372.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-27 09:41:54
Document Index: 786034387

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 846', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

TREMAIN ALANDO THOMAS, Petitioner.
Tremain Alando Thomas, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This matter is before me for preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. After reviewing the record, I dismiss the motion as untimely filed.
I entered Petitioner's criminal judgment on March 1, 2013, sentencing him to, inter alia, 300 months' incarceration after Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime that caused the death of a person, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j), respectively. Petitioner did not appeal. Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 motion no earlier than in September 2016. The court conditionally filed the motion, advised him that the motion appeared untimely, and gave him the opportunity to explain why the court should consider the motion timely filed. Petitioner argues that the § 2255 motion is timely filed within one year of November 1, 2015, which was the effective date for Amendment 794 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Petitioner's criminal judgment became final in March 2013 when the time expired to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524 (2003) (stating a conviction becomes final once the availability of direct review is exhausted). Accordingly, for purposes of § 2255(f)(1), Petitioner had until March 2014 to timely file a § 2255 motion, but he did not file the instant motion until September 2016. See Rule 3, R. Gov. § 2255 Proceedings (discussing prison-mailbox rule for § 2255 motions).
Petitioner argues that the motion should be considered timely filed because Amendment 794 was effective starting November 1, 2015. Consequently, Petitioner believes he has until November 1, 2016, to file the § 2255 motion. However, Amendment 794 does not trigger a limitations period in § 2255(f). Furthermore, an amended to a sentencing guideline is not a "fact" that triggers § 2255(f)(4). See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognizing changes in law do not constitute a "fact" under § 2255(f)(4)). Consequently, § 2255(f)(1) is the appropriate limitations period, and Petitioner filed the instant motion more than one year after her conviction became final.
Equitable tolling is available only in "those rare instances where - due to circumstances external to the party's own conduct - it would be unconscionable to enforce the limitation period against the party and gross injustice would result." Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 246 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000)). Thus, a petitioner must have "been pursuing his rights diligently, and ... some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way" to prevent timely filing. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). I do not find any extraordinary circumstance in the record that prevented Petitioner from filing a timely § 2255 motion. See, e.g.. United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting pro se status and ignorance of the law does not justify equitable tolling); Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that unfamiliarity with the law due to illiteracy or pro se status does not toll the limitations period). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner filed the § 2255 motion beyond the one-year limitations period, Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling, and the § 2255 motion must be dismissed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the foregoing reasons, the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is dismissed. Based upon my finding that Petitioner has not made the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2253(c) and Slack ...