United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
O'Grady, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jason
Laposay's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his
counsel provided ineffective assistance to him. Dkt. No. 43.
The government opposes this Motion as untimely and
unmeritorious. The Court finds the Motion is both untimely
and unmeritorious and thus finds good cause to DENY the
Motion on the merits.
29, 2012, Laposay pleaded guilty before this Court to one
count of production of child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(b), a crime that carries a maximum
sentence of 30 years in prison. Dkt. No. 22. However, the
evidence overwhelming demonstrated that Petitioner had
sexually abused a prepubescent child for several years and
was in possession of hundreds of pictures of child
pornography. On December 14, 2012, the Court sentenced
Laposay to 30 years imprisonment, 15 years of supervised
release, and restitution in the amount of $52, 840. In
accordance with his plea agreement, Laposay did not file an
appeal with the Fourth Circuit.
two years later, around February 13, 2015,  Laposay filed the
current Motion to Vacate. Dkt. No. 43. After obtaining an
extension of time, the Government filed a response in
opposition to the Motion on May 20, 2015. Dkt. No. 54.
Laposay then filed a timely reply in support of his Motion.
Dkt. No. 56.
Motion states three grounds upon which his Motion should be
granted: (1) his counsel provided ineffective assistance
during the pre-plea and guilty plea stages, (2) his counsel
was ineffective during the sentencing stages, and (3) his
counsel was ineffective considering the totality of the
circumstances. Laposay's brief in support of his motion
adds one additional argument: (4) his counsel was ineffective
for failing to advise him that the plea agreement was void.
The Court will first address whether this Motion is timely
and then address whether any of the four grounds Laposay has
asserted have merit.
Whether Laposay's S 2255 Motion is Timely
year time limit applies to § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(0; Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522,
524 (2003). All § 2255 motions must be filed within one
year of the latest of the following four dates:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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