Opinion ID: 2758175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Stewart Decision

Text: AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The one-year period runs from the latest of the following: (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws if the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 6 Case: 13-14218 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 7 of 11 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In 2005, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that, where a petitioner collaterally attacks a federal sentence on the basis that a state conviction used to enhance that federal sentence was vacated, the one-year statute of limitations under § 2255 begins to run when the petitioner receives notice that the state conviction has been vacated, assuming that the petitioner was diligent in obtaining the vacatur of the conviction. 544 U.S. at 298, 125 S. Ct. at 1574-75. The Supreme Court concluded that the vacatur of Johnson’s prior state convictions, used to sentence him as a career offender, constituted a new fact that restarted the one-year statute of limitations under § 2255(f)(4). Id. at 298, 302, 125 S. Ct. at 1575, 1577. An order vacating a prior conviction constituted a new fact because it was “subject to proof or disproof like any other factual issue.” Id. at 306-07, 125 S.Ct. at 1579-80. In 2011, in Stewart v. United States, this Court held that a movant’s numerically second § 2255 motion, which raised a claim under Johnson, was not “second or successive” within the meaning of the AEDPA because the claim did not exist before the movant’s initial § 2255 proceedings. 646 F.3d at 865. But Stewart is not a new fact for the purposes of timeliness under § 2255(f)(4). The plain language of the statute refers to “facts,” and the Stewart decision is a legal opinion, not a new fact. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). Our 7 Case: 13-14218 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 8 of 11 decision in Stewart is not “subject to proof or disproof” like the vacatur of a prior conviction. See Johnson, 544 U.S. at 306-07, 125 S. Ct. 1571. Nor does our decision in Stewart “support[] the claim” Bazemore is presenting, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), as it only determines whether his second-in-time § 2255 motion was successive and not whether his actual claim would succeed on the merits. See Stewart, 646 F.3d at 865. Under the rule announced in Johnson, Bazemore had one year from October 2000, the date he received notice of the vacatur of his state convictions, to file his § 2255 motion. See Johnson, 544 U.S. at 298, 125 S. Ct. at 1574-75. Under the rule announced in Stewart, the fact that Bazemore had initially filed a § 2255 claim in advance of the vacatur of his state convictions would not today prejudice him from filing a second § 2255 within a year of the vacatur of those state convictions. But Stewart was not the law at the time Bazemore filed his numerically second § 2255 motion back in December 2000, and nothing in the 2011 Stewart decision suggests an intended retroactive effect. The instant § 2255 motion was not filed until 2011. Because Stewart did not constitute a new fact that restarted the limitations period under § 2255(f), Bazemore’s instant § 2255 motion in 2011 was not filed within one year of the 2000 date on which his convictions were vacated, and thus his motion is untimely. See E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 8 Case: 13-14218 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 9 of 11 1094, 1097-98 (8th Cir. 2006); Lo v. Endicott, 506 F.3d 572, 575 (7th Cir. 2007); Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2005).