United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.
Angelo Loiseau, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(n§ 2255 Motion"). (ECF Nos. 100,
100-1.] The Government has moved to dismiss
on the ground that the statute of limitations bars the §
2255 Motion. (ECF No. 105.) For the reasons set forth below,
the § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the
statute of limitations.
December 22, 1997, Loiseau pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
(See Presentence Investigation Report 1, ECF No.
95.) On March 6, 1998, the Court entered judgment against
Loiseau and sentenced him to 292 months of imprisonment and a
five-year term of supervised release. (ECF No. 34.)
12, 2010, Loiseau pled guilty to violating the terms and
conditions of his supervised release. (ECF No. 65.) By Order
entered on July 14, 2010, the Court revoked Loiseau's
supervised release and imposed a forty-six-month term of
imprisonment to be served consecutive to a state sentence
imposed upon Loiseau by the Circuit Court for the County of
Spotsylvania. See Loiseau v. United States, No.
3:15CV417, 2016 WL 5019165, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2016)
(citation omitted). Loiseau appealed. On May 6, 2011, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the revocation of Loiseau's supervised release
and the imposition of the forty-six-month sentence.
United States v. Loiseau, 429 Fed.Appx. 210, 213
(4th Cir. 2011).
9, 2015, the Court received from Loiseau a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
("§ 2241 Petition") challenging the revocation
of his supervised release and the forty-six month sentence.
Loiseau, 2016 WL 5019165, at *1 (citation omitted).
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on September 16,
2016, the Court dismissed Loiseau's § 2241 Petition
"without prejudice to Loiseau's pursuit of a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion." Id. at *l-2.
October 17, 2016, Loiseau executed and placed his § 2255
Motion in the prison mail system for transmission to this
Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 51.) The Court deems the § 2255
Motion filed as of this date. See Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
what the Court can discern, in his § 2255 Motion,
Loiseau challenges the revocation of his supervised release
and the imposition of the forty-six month sentence. (§
2255 Mot. 2.) Instead of identifying claims in his §
2255 Motion, Loiseau directs the Court to the § 2241
Petition he previously filed. (See ECF No. 100-1, at
43-47.) For example, as his Ground One in his § 2255
Motion, Loiseau states "[s]ee . . . in the attached
§ 2241 habeas corpus petition . . ." (Id.
at 43.) Therefore, the Court construes Loiseau to raise the
same claims that he did in his § 2241 Petition.
Specifically, Loiseau asserts entitlement to relief upon the
following grounds .-
Claim One: "The Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amend
[ment right to counsel upon his appearance in
[the] U.S. District Court on August 17, 2009 for revocation
of [his] supervised release." (Id. at 18.)
Claim Two: "The Petitioner claims that he was denied his
Sixth Amendment  right to a speedy supervised release
revocation review/hearing." (Id. at 19.)
Claim Three: "The U.S. Dist [rict Court] violated the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act when Loiseau was
removed from state jurisdiction and brought before the
Dist[rict Court] under a U.S. Marshal detainer and thereafter
returned to state custody for 11 months, and then brought
back to federal jurisdiction." (Id.)
Claim Four: "The District Court abused its discretion
and violated Petitioner's right to due process upon the
revocation of supervised release, where the initial cause of
the accusation, conspiracy to distribute (state), was quashed
and the cause of the revocation was not amended, nor process
reissued for the new offense of drug kingpin proceeded upon
after amend[ment] or reissuance." (Id. at 22.)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
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. ...