United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner's pro se motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF Nos. 286 & 291. The
Court denies the motion for the reasons herein.
27, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
846. See ECF Nos. 71, 131, 134, & 135. On
January 27, 2016, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 180
months' imprisonment followed by a term of supervised
release of five years. See ECF Nos. 171 & 179.
Judgment was entered on January 28, 2016. See ECF
No. 179. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
22, 2018, the Court received a handwritten document from
Petitioner indicating his desire to file a § 2255
motion; the document was undated but the envelope was
postmarked June 18, 2018. See ECF No. 286.
Accordingly, pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988), the Court is using June 18, 2018, as the filing
date of Petitioner's § 2255 motion. Petitioner
subsequently filled out the Court's standard form for a
§ 2255 motion. See ECF No. 291.
the Government filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively,
for summary judgment. See ECF No. 301. Petitioner
filed a response in opposition to the Government's
motion. See ECF No. 304.
in federal custody may attack the validity of their sentences
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For a court to vacate, set
aside, or correct a sentence under § 2255, a petitioner
must prove one of the following occurred: (1) a sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to
impose such a sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the
maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise
subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
“This statute was intended to alleviate the burden of
habeas corpus petitions filed by federal prisoners in the
district of confinement, by providing an equally broad remedy
in the more convenient jurisdiction of the sentencing
court.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S.
178, 185 (1979).
district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a
§ 2255 motion 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);
see United States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 534, 538 (4th
Cir. 2010). The determination of whether to hold an
evidentiary hearing ordinarily is left to the sound
discretion of the district court. Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 1970).
Government argues Petitioner's § 2255 motion is
untimely and must be dismissed. See ECF No. 301-1 at
pp. 2-7. The Court agrees.
motion by a federal prisoner for postconviction relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 is subject to a one-year time
limitation . . . .” Clay v. United States, 537
U.S. 522, 524 (2003). The one-year limitation period runs
from the latest of the following four dates:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from ...