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. Artis

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

September 15, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EDDIE RALPH ARTIS, JR.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.

         Eddie Ralph Artis, Jr., a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 36). The Government has responded, asserting, inter alia, that Artis's § 2255 Motion is untimely filed. (ECF No. 43.) For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On October 12, 2012, a Criminal Complaint was filed, charging Artis with one count of distribution of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. (Criminal Complaint 1, ECF No. 1.) On November 7, 2012, a grand jury returned a one-count Indictment against Artis, charging him with the same crime. (Indictment 1, ECF No. 6.) On December 17, 2012, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment against Artis, charging him with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine base (Count One); four counts of distribution of cocaine base (Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five); one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises (Count Six); one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Seven); one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number (Count Eight); and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Count Nine). (Superseding Indictment 1-4, ECF No. 9.)

         On March 4, 2013, the Government filed a Criminal Information against Artis, charging him with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base. (Criminal Information 1, ECF No. 15.) On March 4, 2013, Artis pled guilty to the one count contained in the Criminal Information. (Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 19.) On June 11, 2013, the Court entered judgment against Artis and sentenced him to 156 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 33.) The Court also granted the Government's motion to dismiss the Indictment and Superseding Indictment as to Artis. (Id. at 1.) Artis did not appeal.

         On February 2, 2015, Artis placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. II.)[1] 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, Artis raises the following claims:

Claim One: "Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the search warrant." (§ 2255 Mot. 4.)

Claim Two: "Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to negotiate a favorable plea deal for Petitioner." (Id. at 5.)

         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:

(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).

         A. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)

         Because Artis did not appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), his conviction became final on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 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)). Hence, Artis had until Wednesday, June 25, 2014 to file any motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Artis did not file his § 2255 Motion until February 2, 2015, the motion is untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) (1) .

         B. ...


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.