United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND OPINION
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed by
Movant Alfred Dominick Wright on May 2, 2018. Movant contends
he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was
subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Movant
seeks to have his conviction vacated and to be given time
credit toward any other possible conviction. Respondent
United States of America filed a motion to dismiss on June 7,
2018. Also on June 7, 2018, the court issued an order
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309
(4th Cir. 1975), informing Movant of the dismissal
procedures and the consequences of not responding adequately.
Movant filed responses on August 8, 2018 and August 13, 2018.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
pleaded guilty on November 27, 2007 to knowingly using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing
the firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count 1); and
possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of
cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 841(b)(1)(C). On
April 15, 2008, Movant was sentenced to incarceration for a
period of 130 months, consisting of 70 months as to Count 4
and 60 months as to Count 1, to run consecutively, to be
followed by a term of supervised release for 4 years as to
each Count, to be served concurrently. On December 5, 2008,
an amended judgment was issued pursuant 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) that reduced Movant's term of incarceration to
117 months, consisting of 57 months as to Count 4 and 60
months as to Count 1, to run consecutively. On February 15,
2012, a second amended judgment was entered pursuant to Fed.
R. Crim. P. 35(b) that reduced Movant's sentence to 97
months, consisting of 37 months as to Count 4 and 60 months
as to Count 1, to run consecutively. On October 30, 2014, a
third amended judgment was entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) that reduced Movant's sentence to 78
months, consisting of 18 months as to Count 4 and 60 months
as to Count 1, to run consecutively.
was released to supervision on or about November 4, 2014. On
December 7, 2017, a warrant was issued for Movant's
arrest based on new criminal conduct that would constitute a
violation of Movant's supervised release. The new
criminal conduct resulted in a federal indictment. See
United States v. Wright, Cr. No. 3:17-1202. Movant
currently is in custody awaiting sentencing and revocation
contends that Movant's § 2255 motion is untimely
under § 2255(f), which provides:
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion
under this section. The limitation period shall run from the
(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 making a motion by such
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on
which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due
did not file an appeal of his conviction or sentence. Thus,
Movant's judgment became final on or about May 1, 2008,
ten days after entry of judgment. See United States v.
Osborne, 452 Fed.Appx. 294, 295 (4th Cir.
2011) (citing Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522,
532 (2003) (holding that § 2255 motion must be filed
within one year from the date on which the criminal judgment
becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or
expiration of the time for seeking such review)).
Movant's limitations period under § 2255(f)(1)
expired on May 1, 2009. Movant's § 2255 motion was
not filed until May 2, 2018, approximately nine years later.
contends that his limitations period commenced on October 30,
2014, upon entry of an amended judgment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Even applying the October 30, 2014 date,
the time for filing Movant's § 2255 motion expired
on November 13, 2015. Thus, unless one of the dates set forth
in § 2255(f)(2)-(4) applies, Movant's § 2255
motion is untimely.
contends that he has newly discovered evidence to establish
his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an
illegal search and seizure: first, that his trial counsel has
been disbarred after being arrested; and second, that the
officer who arrested Movant was himself arrested on ...