United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION)
HENRY E. HUDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
David Owens, 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. 75). The Government has responded, asserting, inter alia, that Owens's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 80.) For the reasons set forth below, Owens's § 2255 Motion will be denied.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 2, 2005, the Government filed a Criminal Complaint against Owens, charging him with conspiracy to distribute a mixture and substance containing detectable amounts of heroin. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) On June 20, 2005, a grand jury charged Owens with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. (Indictment 1, ECF No. 9.) After a one-day trial, a jury found Owens guilty of Count One. (ECF No. 42.) On November 18, 2005, the Court entered judgment against Owens and sentenced him to 300 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 61.) On November 16, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Owens's conviction. United States v. Owens, 205 F.App'x 981, 983-84 (4th Cir. 2006).
On June 14, 2014, Owens placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 13.) 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, Owens raises the following claims for relief:
Claim One: "The predicate offenses for which the Movant was given career offender status were [North Carolina v.] Alford[, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)] pleas in the State of Connecticut. Per Second Circuit case law and the Supreme Court decision in Descamps [v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013)], the Court committed plain error." (§ 2255 Mot. 4.)
Claim Two: "Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress the original search of the vehicle for lack of probable cause as a pre-trial motion before the Court."
(Id. at 5.)
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(0 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 ...