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.

Escamilla v. United States

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

January 22, 2018

MANUEL ESCAMILLA, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          REED O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On April 3, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. For the foregoing reasons, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

         I.

         Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On February 13, 2015, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 292 months of confinement. On February 24, 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal as frivolous. United States v. Escamilla, No. 14-10322 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2015).

         On January 12, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 petition. He argues he was improperly sentenced as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines, and he improperly received a two-level firearm enhancement.

         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, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal on February 24, 2015. Petitioner's conviction became final ninety days later on May 25, 2015. See Sup. Ct. R. 13. Petitioner then had one year, or until May 25, 2016, to file his § 2255 petition. He did not file the petition until January 12, 2017. His petition is therefore untimely under § 2255(f)(1).

         Petitioner relies on Mathis v. United States, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), to argue his petition is timely under § 2255(f)(3). This section states the limitations period runs from 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. In Mathis, the Supreme Court outlined the process by which a district court should determine if a defendant's prior state court conviction can be used to enhance the defendant's sentence. Here, Petitioner's prior state court convictions were not used to enhance his sentence, and he was not sentenced as a career offender. Mathis therefore did not apply to his sentence. Further, Mathis did not announce a new substantive rule that was made retroactively on collateral review. Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2257; see also In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (denying authorization to file a ...


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.