United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
JOSHUA SHANE DRONEBARGER (BOP Registration No. 48564-177),
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall 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 could have been discovered through the