United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JOHN A. GIBNEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
John Pride, III, 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. 33). By Memorandum Order entered on April 11, 2016, the Court directed Pride to show cause as to why his § 2255 Motion should not be dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). (ECF No. 57, at 3.) Pride has submitted his response to the Court's Memorandum Order. (ECF No. 58.)
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 3, 2012, a grand jury charged Pride, in a one-count Indictment, with conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. (Indictment 1, ECF No. 1.) Pride pled guilty to the charge. (Plea Agreement 11, ECF No. 19.) On October 11, 2012, the undersigned entered judgment against Pride and sentenced him to 120 months of incarceration. (J. 2, ECF No. 29.) Pride did not appeal.
On December 26, 2013, Pride mailed the instant § 2255 Motion to the Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 11.) The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (concluding that a prisoner's document is considered filed when the prisoner places the document in the prison mailing system for mailing to the Court). In his §2255 Motion, Pride contends that he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. (Br. Supp. § 2255 Mot. 4, ECF No. 33-1.) Pride also glosses over a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise objections to his Presentence Investigation Report. (Id. at 9.) Pride has also filed two motions to amend his § 2255 Motion ("First Motion to Amend, " ECF No. 40; "Second Motion to Amend, " ECF No. 49),  as well as a motion for an extension of time to seek reconsideration of a prior Court Order ("Motion for Extension of Time, " ECF No. 48). Because Pride has failed to identify which Court Order he seeks reconsideration for, his Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 48) will be DENIED.
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).
Because Pride did not appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), his conviction became final on Thursday, October 25, 2012, the last date to file an appeal. See United States v. Clayton, No. 3:07CR488, 2010 WL 4735762, at *3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing Arnette v. United States, Nos. 4:01CR16, 4:04CV122, 2005 WL 1026711, at *4 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2005)); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (requiring defendant to file an appeal within fourteen (14) days of the entry of judgment). Hence, Pride had until Friday, October 25, 2013 to file any motion ...