United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
James Overton Ellis, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("2255 Mot., " ECF No. 24). The Government requests that the Court deny the § 2255 Motion on the grounds that, inter alia, the statute of limitations bars the § 2255 Motion. Ellis has responded. For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255 Motion will be denied as barred by the statute of limitations.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ellis pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing detectable amounts of cocaine base. (Plea Agreement 1-2, ECF No. 13.) On July 16, 2008, the Court entered final judgment and sentenced Ellis to 235 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 19.)
On April 16, 2012, Ellis executed his § 2255 Motion and presumably placed it in the prison mail system. (§ 2255 Mot. 14.) In his § 2255 Motion, Ellis asserts that in light of the decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d. 237 (4th Cir. 2011), he "is now legally innocent of the enhancement pursuant to [the] ACCA [Armed Career Criminal Act] and the 922(g) conviction." (Mem. Supp. § 2255 Mot. 4, ECF No. 25.)
A. Statute of Limitations
Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a § 2255 Motion. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) now reads:
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(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 of 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 ...