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. Young

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

March 17, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TRAMELLE YOUNG, Petitioner.

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

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Tramelle 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).[1]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.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On 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.

         On June 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.)

         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 ...

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.