Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Wyatt

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

May 8, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RODNEY LORENZO WYATT, JR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.

Rodney Lorenzo Wyatt, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 37.) The Government has moved to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the statute of limitations bars the § 2255 Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wyatt pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base and 500 grams of more of cocaine hydrochloride. (Plea Agreement 1, ECF No. 14.) On September 14, 2009, the Court entered judgment against Wyatt and sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 21.) Wyatt did not appeal.

On May 29, 2012, Wyatt executed and presumably placed his § 2255 Motion in prison mail system for transmission to this Court. The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

In his § 2255 Motion, Wyatt asserts entitlement to relief upon the following grounds:

Claims One and Two The Court incorrectly sentenced Wyatt as a career offender.

Claim Three Wyatt failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because:
(a) "Counsel never briefed Petitioner on the validity of the arrest and indictment, evidentiary hearing, enhancements of sentence, [and his] designation as a career offender[.]'" (§ 2255 Mot. 8.)
(b) Counsel "would not communicate with Petitioner's wife concerning the case so she could assist Petitioner." (Id.)
(c) Counsel "did no request any medical or psychological testing for Petitioner, did not refute erroneous guidelines during sentencing phase of trial, nor did he appraise Petitioner of his right to appeal...." (Id.)

II. 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.