Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oscar Montgomery v. United States of America

December 17, 2012

OSCAR MONTGOMERY, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docs. 1 & 3) and his memorandum in support (Doc. 2).

1.Facts

On August 8, 2007, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (between four and fifty grams) and one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (less than 5 grams), both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United States v. Montgomery, 07-cr-40028 (Doc. 27). The written plea agreement included a waiver of Petitioner's rights to appeal and to collaterally attack his sentence (Doc. 29 in criminal case).

On November 15, 2007, the undersigned Judged sentenced Petitioner to 288 months imprisonment, a total of eight years supervised release, a $600 fine, and a $200 special assessment (Doc. 36 in criminal case). Judgment was entered on November 28, 2007 (Doc. 36 in criminal case). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal, nor did he apply for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. He did, however, file a pro se motion for retroactive application of new crack cocaine sentencing guidelines on June 21, 2012 (Doc. 43 in criminal case). That motion is still pending.

2.Analysis

As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Petitioner's § 2255 motion is timely. Prisoners used to be able to file motions under § 2255 at any time during their sentences. However, on April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. I, § 106 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a) & (b), 2255), which added a one-year limitations period for a motion attacking a sentence. The one-year limitations period runs from the latest of four events:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(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 governmental action;

(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 diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

Where a petitioner does not file a direct appeal, the statute of limitations bars any § 2255

action commenced one year and ten days after sentencing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Fed. R. App. P. 4 (appeal in a criminal case must be filed within ten days of entry of judgment). Here, Petitioner filed his § 2255 motion well over four years after judgment was entered in his criminal case. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.