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.

Dronebarger v. United States

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

December 14, 2017

JOSHUA SHANE DRONEBARGER (BOP Registration No. 48564-177),
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ED KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Movant Joshua Shane Dronebarger, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See Dkt. No. 2. Because his Section 2255 motion is untimely, as explained below, the Court DISMISSES the motion with prejudice as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

         Background

         Movant pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). See United States v. Dronebarger, No. 3:14-cv-383-K (01), Dkt. No. 36. On September 23, 2015, the Court entered judgment and sentenced Movant to 84 months in prison with three years of supervised release. See Id. He did not appeal.

         In June 2017, Movant filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the Court denied. See United States v. Dronebarger, No. 3:14-cv-383-K (01), Dkt. Nos. 38 & 39. However, because the motion sought relief that might be available under Section 2255, the Court also directed the Clerk of Court to send Movant the standard Section 2255 form. See id.

         Movant filed this Section 2255 motion on September 6, 2017. See Dkt. No. 2. He claims that his counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by promising him that the Court would reduce his offense level for his diminished capacity-under the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K2.13-when it calculated his guideline sentence. See Dkt. No. 2 at 3.

         Because his Section 2255 motion appeared to be untimely, the Court ordered Movant to show cause why his motion should not be dismissed as time-barred. See Dkt. No. 4. Movant now responds that his motion is timely under Section 2255(f)(3) because, in Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017), the Supreme Court held that “a prisoner could not be denied his right to collaterally attack his sentence on [the] grounds of [i]neffective [a]ssistance of [c]ounsel.” Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.

         Statute of Limitations

         “[Section] 2255 establishes a ‘1-year period of limitation' within which a federal prisoner may file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under that section.” Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 356 (2005). It states:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation 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 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 ...

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.