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.

Jefferson v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

November 13, 2017

SHON JEFFERSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          REED O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner's petition to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the petition as barred by the statute of limitations.

         I.

         On November 24, 2009, a jury found Petitioner guilty of (1) unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count One); (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (Count Two); and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count Three). On April 27, 2010, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 420 months in prison. On July 13, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Jefferson, 432 Fed. App'x 382 (5th Cir. 2011). On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.

         On June 9, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 petition. He argues his sentence is unlawful under the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). On August 19, 2017, the government filed its response arguing that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner did not file a reply.

         II.

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 establishes a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas proceedings. See ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ("AEDPA"). The statute provides that the limitations period 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 governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the Petitioner was prevented from filing by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the 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.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

         In most cases, the limitations period begins to run when the judgment becomes final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Here, Petitioner's conviction became final on November 14, 2011, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 2000). He then had one year, or until November 14, 2012, to file his § 2255 petition. He did not file his petition until June 9, 2016. His petition is therefore untimely under § 2255(f)(1).

         Petitioner claims his petition is timely under § 2255(f)(3) based on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court considered the residual clause of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which defines “violent felony” to include any felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” (Id.) The Court found the residual clause to be unconstitutionally vague. Although Petitioner was not sentenced under the ACCA, he argues that the career offender enhancement under ...


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.