United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court for consideration of the pro se
petition to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner Job Taylor. For
the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the petition.
Factual and Procedural History
pled guilty to charges of possession with intent to
distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base and felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition. He was sentenced
pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to 262 months
incarceration on each count. See Plea Ag. ¶ 7,
ECF No. 43 at 4; Sent. Tr. 13:21-14:12. He filed a direct
appeal, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed on October 30, 2006.
United States v. Taylor, 204 F.App'x 293 (4th
Cir. 2006). He did not file a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
18, 2016,  Petitioner filed this § 2255
petition, challenging his classification as both a career
offender and an armed career criminal. ECF No. 71. The
Government filed a response in opposition and a motion for
summary judgment, asserting that the petition should be
denied as untimely. ECF Nos. 75, 76. He then filed a reply.
ECF No. 79. This matter is now ripe for decision.
28 U.S.C. § 2255
28, Section 2255 of the United States Code provides that a
prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court may
file a petition in the court that imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. A petitioner is
entitled to relief under § 2255 if he proves by a
preponderance of the evidence one of the following: (1) that
the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States; (2) that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence; (3) that the sentence
was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) that
the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Miller v. United
States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4th Cir. 1958) (per curiam).
“The scope of review of non-constitutional error is
more limited than that of constitutional error; a
non-constitutional error does not provide a basis for
collateral attack unless it involves ‘a fundamental
defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of
justice, ' or is ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary
demands of fair procedure.'” Leano v. United
States, 334 F.Supp.2d 885, 890 (D.S.C. 2004) (quoting
United States v. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d 490, 495-96
(4th Cir. 1999)).
deciding a § 2255 petition, a court need not hold a
hearing if “the motion and the files and records of the
case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The Court has
thoroughly reviewed the motions, files, and records in this
case, liberally construing Petitioner's pro se filings,
and finds that no hearing is necessary.
Standard of Review
brings this petition pro se. Courts are required to construe
liberally pleadings filed by pro se litigants to allow for
the development of potentially meritorious claims. See
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam). These pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). However,
“[t]he ‘special judicial solicitude' with
which a district court should view such pro se complaints
does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those
questions which are squarely presented to a court may
properly be addressed.” Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
Government filed a motion for summary judgment. “The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, the Court
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its
favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 447 U.S. 242,
Timeliness under AEDPA
Government argues that Petitioner's § 2255 petition
should be ...