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. Wilson

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

March 21, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMES E. WILSON, Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION)

HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

James E. Wilson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 43).[1] The Government has responded, asserting, inter alia, that Wilson's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 46.) For the reasons set forth below, Wilson's § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 16, 2006, a grand jury charged Wilson with: conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats and violence (Count One); interference with commerce by violence (Count Two); and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (Count Three). (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) Wilson pled guilty to Counts Two and Three. (Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 19.) On April 17, 2007, the Court entered judgment against Wilson and sentenced him to a total of 157 months of incarceration. (J. 2, ECF No. 38.) Specifically, the Court sentenced Wilson to 37 months for Count One, and 120 months for Count Two, to run consecutively. (Id.) Wilson did not appeal.

On May 14, 2014, Wilson placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 18.)[2] 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, Wilson asserts that "[i]n light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Alleyne v. United States, [133 S.Ct. 2151] (2013), Petitioner was sentenced erroneously." (§ 2255 Mot. 3.) Specifically, Wilson contends that the sentence imposed for Count Three is "an erroneous, illegal and unconstitutional sentence" because he had a right to have a jury determine whether he discharged the firearm. (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

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 the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

A. 28 U.S.C. ยง ...


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.