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. Moxley

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

November 9, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
THOMAS WAYNE MOXLEY, Petitioner.

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

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Thomas Wayne Moxley, 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. 86).[1]The Government has responded, asserting that Moxley's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 92.) For the reasons set forth below, Moxley's § 2255 Motion will be denied as barred by the statute of limitations.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On June 29, 2000, the Court sentenced Moxley to ninety-seven months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (ECF No. 46.) On November 20, 2007, Moxley commenced his three-year term of supervised release. (ECF No. 92, at 2.) On May 24, 2010, the probation office filed a petition on supervised release notifying the Court that Moxley had been charged in the Circuit Court for the City of Hopewell ("Circuit Court") with malicious wounding and abduction. (ECF No. 75; ECF No. 92, at 2.) Moxley was convicted in the Circuit Court of unlawful wounding and abduction and sentenced to active term of five years of imprisonment. (ECF No. 92, at 2.)

         On April 15, 2015, Moxley appeared before this Court to answer for violating the terms of his supervised release. (ECF No. 83.) Moxley admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release. (Id.) The Court sentenced Moxley to twenty months of imprisonment and sixteen months of supervised release. (Id.) On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order reflecting this judgment. (ECF No. 84.)

         On July 15, 2016, Moxley placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (ECF No. 86, at 1; ECF No. 86-1.) [2]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, Moxley contends that he is entitled to relief because:

Claim One The District Court committed reversible error by failing to order the Government to turn over all exculpatory and impeachment evidence. (Mem. Supp. § 2255 Mot. 1, ECF No. 87.)
Claim Two The District Court committed reversible error by failing to credit Moxley for the time served in the Riverside Regional Jail. (Id.)
Claim Three The District Court committed reversible error by depicting Moxley's charges as crimes of violence. (Id.)
Claim Four Moxley failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because counsel, inter alia, failed to raise the errors described in Claims One through Three. (Id. at 2.)

         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 ...

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.