United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge
A. Pleasant, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF
No. 159.) The Government has responded, asserting that
Pleasant's § 2255 Motion is untimely. (ECF No. 162.)
For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255 Motion will
be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
Initial Federal Proceedings
a jury trial, this Court convicted Jeffrey A. Pleasant of two
counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence,
two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence, two counts of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See United
States v. Pleasant, 31 Fed.Appx. 91, 92 (4th Cir. 2002).
The Court "determined that Pleasant qualified as an
armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West
2000) and sentenced him to a total of 622 months
appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed Pleasant's convictions and sentence on
February 19, 2002. IcL at 93.
his direct appeal, this Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion by Pleasant. See United States v. Pleasant,
73 Fed.Appx. 653 (4th Cir. 2003). In the following years, the
Court denied a host of unauthorized, successive § 2255
motions filed by Pleasant. See, e.g., United
States v. Pleasant, No. 3:00CR71, 2013 WL 2950522, at *1
(E.D. Va. June 13, 2013).
Current Federal Proceedings
April of 2017, Pleasant requested permission from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a
successive application for § 2255 relief with this
Court. (See ECF No. 158-2, at 15-16.) On May 23,
2017, the Fourth Circuit granted Pleasant permission to file
a successive § 2255 Motion with this Court. (ECF No.
158, at 1.) The Fourth Circuit stated:
Pleasant has made a prima facie showing that a new rule of
constitutional law announced in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and held to apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review by Welch v.
United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), may apply to his
case. See In re Vassell, 751 F.3d 267, 269 (4th Cir.
2014). Accordingly, we grant his motion for authorization to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on
Johnson, thus permitting consideration of the §
2255 motion by the district court in the first instance.
(Id.) Pleasant had attached a copy of his proposed,
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to his request for
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. (ECF
No. 158-2, at 1-15.) In that document, Pleasant listed the
following grounds for relief:
Ground One "Unconstitutional Application of the Armed
Career Criminal Act." (Id. at 5.)
Ground Two "Petitioner was denied equal treatment of the
law where he timely sought relief under Johnson v.
U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)." (Id. at 7.)
14, 2017, the Court received from Pleasant his "MOTION
FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND JOHNSON V.
UNITED STATES 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)" ("§ 2255
Motion," ECF No. 159.) In his § 2255 Motion, in
support of Ground One, Pleasant contends that, in light of
Johnson, he was improperly sentenced to an enhanced
sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act
Because the petitioner no longer has three ACCA-qualifying
convictions, he is no longer an armed career criminal. His
sentence should be vacated because Johnson
established a "new rule of constitutional law,"
that has been "made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
(§ 2255 Mot. 13 (citation omitted).)
on June 14, 2017, the Court received a Motion for Leave to
Amend Motion for Relief Pursuant to § 2255 ("Motion
to Amend," ECF No. 160). In the Motion to Amend, which
spans nearly 100 pages with attachments, Pleasant seeks to
add the following claims:
Ground Three: Pleasant claims that his federal prosecution
was held in violation of:
(a) The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161 et