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.

Sandidge v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 4, 2016

AMYE L. SANDIDGE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          Amye L. Sandidge, Petitioner, Pro Se.

          USA, Respondent, represented by Amanda A. Robertson, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Amye L. Sandidge's Motion to Vacate, Set aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). For the following reasons, the Court denies Ms. Sandidge's motion.

         1. Background

         On March 31, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). See United States v. Sandidge, Case No. 14-cr-40008-JPG-9 (Doc. 329). On September 11, 2015, the undersigned Judge sentenced Ms. Sandidge to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 84 months, three years supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and a $100 fine. (Doc. 405, 14-cr-40008). Ms. Sandidge did not appeal her conviction or sentence.

         2. Standards.

         A petitioner seeking relief under § 2255 must file a motion within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 2255(f). 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(f)), 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.

         Petitioner filed her § 2255 motion on August 2, 2016, within one year of the date on which her judgment of conviction became filed. Thus, her § 2255 motion was timely filed.

         The Court must grant a § 2255 motion when a defendant's "sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, "[h]abeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for extraordinary situations." Prewitt v. United States,83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996). "Relief under § 2255 is available only for errors of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, or where the error represents a fundamental defect which inherently results in a ...


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.