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 Daniel Ray Buie.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the
Factual and Procedural History
pled guilty to a drug charge and a § 924(c) charge. He
was sentenced as a career offender to 132 months on the drug
charge and 60 months consecutive on the gun
charge. He filed a direct appeal, and the Fourth
Circuit affirmed on April 5, 2011. United States v.
Buie, 421 F. App'x 281 (4th Cir. 2011). He did not
file a petition for certiorari. On July 3, 2012,
filed a § 2255 petition asserting various grounds for
relief. ECF No. 140. At a Rule 35(b) hearing on February 14,
2013, his counsel moved to withdraw the § 2255 petition
with the consent of Petitioner, and the Court granted the
motion. See Hearing Tr. 2:6-3:8 (Feb. 14, 2013); ECF
September 9, 2015,  Petitioner filed a motion entitled
“Cause Motion to Re-Instate or Other Appropriate
Remedy, ” in which he again challenged his conviction
and sentence on various grounds. ECF No. 210. The Court
issued an order stating that if he intended to seek relief
pursuant to § 2255, then, as required by Local Rule
83.VIII.03, he needed to file his petition on the appropriate
forms, and he then did so. ECF Nos. 212, 214.
petition, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief on
four grounds: (1) evidence supporting his conviction was
illegally seized; (2) his plea was not knowing and voluntary;
(3) this Court erred in not granting his motion to suppress,
or dismiss or amend Count 1 of the indictment (the drug count
to which he ultimately pled guilty); and (4) his counsel was
ineffective. The Government filed a motion to dismiss, ECF
No. 218, asserting that the petition should be dismissed as
untimely, and he filed a response in opposition, ECF No. 222.
matter is now ripe for decision.
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).