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.

Prince v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Waco Division

April 10, 2017

STEPHEN ALLEN PRICE JR., MOVANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.

          ORDER

          ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Movant Stephen Allen Price Jr.'s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [#58]. Having considered the document, the governing law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.

         Background

         On October 7, 2010, Price was sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines to 151 months for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of Methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance. Price challenges his sentence pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).

         Analysis

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) establishes a one-year limitation period for the filing of a § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). More specifically, § 2255(f) provides:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation shall run 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 government 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.

Id.

         Price's conviction became final in 2010. However, Price did not execute his § 2255 motion until April 18, 2016, more than four years after the AEDPA's one-year limitation period had expired. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Beckles, holding “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.” Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Therefore, Price's untimeliness is not excused because of Johnson, and his motion is barred by the AEDPA's statute of limitations.

         Certificate ...


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.