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. Bearfield

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

July 28, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SHANNON ALLEN BEARFIELD, Petitioner.

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

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Shannon Allen Bearfield, 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. 41).[1] The Government has responded, asserting, inter alia, that Bearfield's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 48.) For the reasons set forth below, Bearfield's § 2255 Motion will be denied.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On May 28, 2010, the Government filed a Criminal Complaint against Bearfield, charging him with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. (Criminal Complaint 1, ECF No. I.) On August 3, 2010, a grand jury charged Bearfield with one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (Count One), and one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride (Count Two). (Indictment 1-2, ECF No. 10.) On October 13, 2010, Bearfield pled guilty to Count One. (Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 14.) On January 19, 2011, the Court entered judgment against Bearfield and sentenced him to 320 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 24.) On August 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bearfield's appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights included in Bearfield's Plea Agreement. United States v. Bearfield, 443 F.App'x 853, 854 (4th Cir. 2011).

         On December 7, 2014, Bearfield 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, Bearfield raises the following claims for relief:[2]

Claim One: "Ineffective assistance of counsel." (§ 2255 Mot. 4.)
Claim Two: "Whether prior offenses used to enhance my sentence [are] no longer applicable." (Id. at 5.)
Claim Three: "Whether signed plea agreement at this junction [is] valid." (Id. at 7.)

         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:

(1) 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 ...

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.