United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
AHSHUN T. COLLINS, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Petitioner Ahshun T.
Collins' Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Relief (d/e 1). The Court
must dismiss the motion if it appears from the motion, any
attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts, Rule 4(b). A preliminary review of
Petitioner's § 2255 motion and the record of prior
proceedings establishes that the motion must be dismissed
because Petitioner is not entitled to relief.
5, 2006, Petitioner and several other individuals were
charged in a 10-count Indictment. Petitioner was charged in
four counts. Count 1 of the Indictment charged Petitioner
with conspiring to commit armed bank robbery, commit robbery,
and carry and use a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. United
States v. Williams et al., No. 06-cr-20032 (hereinafter,
Crim.), Indictment (d/e 23), at 1-5. Count 8 charged
Petitioner with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) and (d). Id. at 12. Count 9 charged
Petitioner with using and carrying a firearm during a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Id. at 13. Count 10 charged Petitioner with
knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Id. at 14. On October 25,
2006, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 8, and 9.
March 13, 2007, Petitioner appeared before United States
District Judge Michael P. McCuskey for sentencing. Judge
McCuskey sentenced Petitioner to 60 months' imprisonment
on Count 1 and 134 months' imprisonment on Count 8, to be
served concurrently, and 84 months' imprisonment on Count
9, to be served consecutively to the terms of imprisonment
imposed on Counts 1 and 8. Crim., Judgment (d/e 195), at 3.
Judge McCuskey also sentenced Petitioner to 3 years of
supervised release on Count 1 and 5 years of supervised
release on each of Counts 8 and 9, with the terms to be
served concurrently. Id. at 4. Petitioner did not
2016, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion attacking his
career offender sentence based on Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Collins v. United
States, No. 16-cv-02181, Motion (d/e 1). On April 13,
2017, Petitioner, through counsel, voluntarily dismissed this
§ 2255 motion. Collins v. United States, No.
16-cv-02181, Notice (d/e 7).
February 2018, Petitioner filed his Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Relief, alleging that his former counsel's failure to
challenge Petitioner's career offender designation
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2018,
Petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to add a claim that
his sentence on Count 9 was imposed in violation of his Fifth
Amendment due process rights. The Court denied the motion as
moot, finding that Petitioner was entitled to amend his
§ 2255 motion as a matter of course under Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that it
would consider both of Petitioner's § 2255 claims.
prisoner claiming that his sentence violates the Constitution
may move for the Court “to vacate, set aside, or
correct [his] sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Relief under § 2555 is an extraordinary remedy because a
§ 2255 petitioner has already had “an opportunity
for full process.” Almonacid v. United States,
476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007).
argues that his former counsel's failure to challenge
Petitioner's designation as a career offender under the
United States Sentencing Guidelines constituted ineffective
assistance of counsel. According to Petitioner, his
designation as a career offender was erroneous because his
sentences on the three qualifying convictions were imposed on
the same day.
§ 2255 motion is untimely with respect to his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. A one-year period of
limitation applies to § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f). The one-year period begins to run from the latest
(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