United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge
Nathaniel Lowe, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 (hereinafter, "§ 2254 Petition").
Respondent has moved to dismiss the action on the grounds
that it is barred by the statute of limitation. For the
reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will
Pertinent State Procedural History
a jury trial, Lowe was convicted in the Circuit Court of the
City of Portsmouth ("Circuit Court") of malicious
wounding, robbery, attempted murder, armed burglary, and four
counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and
was sentenced to fifty years of imprisonment. (ECF No. 9-6,
at 1-2.) Lowe appealed his convictions. On September 6, 2011,
the Supreme Court of Virginia refused Lowe's Petition for
Appeal. (ECF No. 9-4, at 1-2.)
August 30, 2012, Lowe filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus with the Circuit Court. (ECF No. 9-6.) On January 4,
2013, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition. (Id.
at 17.) Lowe appealed. On November 13, 2013, the Supreme
Court of Virginia refused Lowe's petition for appeal.
(ECF No. 9-7, at 1.)
October 8, 2015, Lowe executed his § 2254 Petition and
placed it in the prison mail system. (§ 2254 Pet. 15.) In
his § 2254 Petition, Lowe contends that he is entitled
to relief upon the following grounds: 
Claim 1 Petitioner's petition for appeal on direct appeal
was not reviewed by a three-judge panel of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia.
Claim 2 The evidence was insufficient to convict petitioner
due to unreliable eyewitness identifications, and witness
testimony that was not credible.
Claim 3(a) Counsel failed to investigate and move for
discovery and exculpatory evidence- witness Dionne Charles
had allegedly placed petitioner at the scene, but had not
been subpoenaed by the Commonwealth.
Claim 3(b) Counsel failed to request a continuance when a
crucial alibi witness was not available.
Claim 3(c) Counsel's lack of preparation resulted in the
exclusion of certain testimony from Officer Willis regarding
evidence recovered at the crime scene.
Claim 3(d) Counsel failed to investigate the facts and
interview crucial witnesses that would have changed the
outcome of the trial.
Claim 3(e) Counsel failed to impeach Detective Ferrell's
suggestive photo array and other inconsistencies in his
Claim 3(f) Counsel was ineffective for failing to strike
juror Donald Franklin because he knew Roy lent Jenkins and
they may have strategized before trial.
Claim 3(g) Counsel was ineffective because he did not poll
jurors who had questions about the evidence.
Claim 3(h) Counsel failed to call witness Corey Lowe who was
key to proving ...