United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
AMYE L. SANDIDGE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
L. Sandidge, Petitioner, Pro Se.
Respondent, represented by Amanda A. Robertson, Assistant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
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. Â§ 2255 (Doc. 1). For the
following reasons, the Court denies Ms. Sandidge's
March 31, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine violation of 21
U.S.C. Â§ 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.
petitioner seeking relief under Â§ 2255 must file a motion
within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Â§
2255(f). Prisoners used to be able to file motions under Â§
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, Â§ 106 (codified at 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 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
(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 diligence.
filed her Â§ 2255 motion on August 2, 2016, within one year of
the date on which her judgment of conviction became filed.
Thus, her Â§ 2255 motion was timely filed.
Court must grant a Â§ 2255 motion when a defendant's
"sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2255.
However, "[h]abeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2255
is reserved for extraordinary situations." Prewitt
v. United States,83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996).
"Relief under Â§ 2255 is available only for errors of
constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, or where the
error represents a fundamental defect which inherently
results in a ...