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.

Lenton v. United States

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

May 30, 2017

NEVIN L. LENTON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          SARA DARROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner Nevin Lenton's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 3. For the foregoing reasons, Lenton's petition is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         On November 14, 2013, Lenton pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and attempted aggravated bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). Plea Agreement, Case No. 2:12-cr-20081, Cr. ECF No. 19.[1] The Court accepted the plea and entered judgment against him on November 15, 2013. Judgment, Cr. ECF No .28. The parties agreed that Lenton was an armed career criminal pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), because he had three prior convictions that counted as violent felonies under the Act. PSR ¶ 45, Cr. ECF No. 26. Two of those felonies were burglaries, one in Illinois and one in Georgia. Id. at ¶¶ 50-51. The parties ultimately agreed that with the ACCA enhancement, an offense level of 31, and a criminal history category of VI, the appropriate sentence was 188 months-the low end of the guideline range.

         On May 16, 2016, Lenton filed his § 2255 petition, arguing that due to the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his predicate offenses no longer count as violent felonies under the ACCA, and that he no longer qualifies as an armed career criminal. See Mot. Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 3. The Government responded to Lenton's petition, arguing that Lenton is not entitled to relief because “his claim is (1) waived; (2) procedurally defaulted; (3) untimely; and (4) barred by the concurrent-sentence doctrine.” Gov't Resp., ECF No. 8. Lenton, via his appointed counsel, then filed a response acknowledging that the claim is time-barred due to Lenton's plea agreement and therefore procedurally defaulted. Pet'r's Reply 2, ECF No. 10.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard on a Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) governs the procedure by which a federal prisoner may file successive habeas corpus petitions challenging his criminal sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). AEDPA established a 1-year time period in which a federal prisoner may file a federal habeas petition, running from the latest of:

(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).

         II. ...


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.