United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
LONNEY C. WILLIAMS, #13381-078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
Clark, United States District Judge
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
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.
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.
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).
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
(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
exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Section 2255 imposes a general
one-year statute of limitations.
the AEDPA imposes certain restrictions on the filing of
second or ...