United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255
E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Young, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted
this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside,
or correct his federal sentence ("§ 2255 Motion,
" ECF No. 39).The Government has moved to dismiss on the
ground that Young's § 2255 Motion is barred by the
statute of limitations. (ECF No. 42.) Young has not
responded. For the reasons set forth below, the
Government's Motion to Dismiss will be granted, and
Young's § 2255 Motion will be denied.
December 15, 2008, a grand jury charged Young with one count
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Indictment 1, ECF No. 1.) On
March 5, 2009, Young pled guilty to the one-count Indictment.
(Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 28.) Prior to sentencing, a
Probation Officer determined that Young "[did] not
qualify for a sentence enhancement under the Career Offender,
Criminal Livelihood, Armed Career Criminal or Repeat and
Dangerous Sex Offender sections, as defined in Chapter 4,
Part B, of the Sentencing Guidelines." (Pre-Sentence
Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶ 55.) On June
22, 2009, the Court entered judgment against Young and
sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No.
36.) Young did not appeal.
24, 2016, Young placed the present § 2255 Motion in the
prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255
Mot. 12.) 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, Young raises the following
claims for relief:
Claim One: "In light of Johnson v. [United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)], the District Court erred
in applying the modified categorical approach in determining
whether defendant's prior assault and battery of a high
and aggravated nature (ABHAN) conviction under." (§
2255 Mot. 4.)
Claim Two: "Erroneous application of guidelines."
(Id. at 5.)
Claim Three: "U.S. Sentencing Guidelines dealing with
juvenile adjudication." (Id. at 6.)
Claim Four: "Ineffective assistance of counsel."
(Id. at 8.)
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)
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion
under this section. The limitation period shall run from the
(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 ...