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.

Williams v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division

May 8, 2018

LONNEY C. WILLIAMS, #13381-078
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

          Ron Clark, United States District Judge

         Movant Lonney Charles Williams, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Court ordered the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. Procedural Background

         Williams is in custody pursuant to a 2007 conviction for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), cause No. 6:06-cr-61. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, for which Williams entered a guilty plea, he was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. He filed a direct appeal, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as frivolous in 2008. Williams then filed his first section 2255 motion in 2009, which this Court dismissed in 2010. See 6:09-cv-530, Dkt. #19. He then filed a second section 2255 motion in 2014, which this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive. See 6:14-cv-711, Dkt. # 7.

         Subsequently, Williams filed the instant section 2255 motion in June 2016. He sought relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), arguing that he was sentenced to five years longer than what is allowed under Johnson. The Government filed an answer, arguing that the motion is successive because Williams did not receive permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive motion.

         After a review of the pleadings and the underlying criminal record, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that, because his motion is indeed successive, Williams' motion should be dismissed for lack subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. #10). Williams has filed timely objections, (Dkt. #11).

         II. Legal Standards

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, which imposed a No. of habeas corpus reforms, an inmate must file a section 2255 motion within one year of 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 exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Section 2255 imposes a general one-year statute of limitations.

         Moreover, the AEDPA imposes certain restrictions on the filing of second or ...


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.