United States v. Loiseau

          MEMORANDUM OPINION.

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.

         Michael 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.]^[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.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On 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.)

         On July 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).

         On July 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.

         On October 17, 2016, Loiseau executed and placed his § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for transmission to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 51.)^[2] The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of this date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

         From 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^[3] 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 ^[4] 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.)

         II. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         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. ...