United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Maria Esther Carranza ("Petitioner") has filed a
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody
("Petitioner's Motion") (Docket Entry No.
588).The United States ("Respondent")
responded by filing its Motion to Dismiss
§ 2255 Motion ("Respondent's
Motion to Dismiss") (Docket Entry No. 608) . For the
reasons explained below, the court will grant
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and will dismiss
Factual and Procedural Background
April 15, 2016, Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to
possess, with the intent to distribute, a substance
containing a detectable amount of heroin. The court
sentenced Petitioner to 87 months imprisonment and a judgment
was entered on January 13, 2017. Petitioner did not directly
appeal her conviction or sentence, which became final on
January 27, 2017: fourteen days after judgment was entered.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4 (b) (1) (A) (providing that a
defendant's notice of appeal must be filed in the
district court within 14 days of the later of (1) the entry
of judgment or (2) the filing of the government's notice
signed her Motion and placed it into the prison mailing
system on October 17, 2018,  alleging that her counsel
provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and that her
conviction and sentence are subject to collateral attack
based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sessions v.
Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), and Carpenter v.
United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018). Respondent filed
its Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2019, arguing that
Petitioner's Motion is time barred. Petitioner did
not respond to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
Statute of Limitations
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA") includes a one-year statute of
limitations for all federal habeas petitions. See 28
u.s.c. § 2255 (f). AEDPA's statute of limitations
provision is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f):
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion
under this section. The limitation period shall run from the
(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.
Application of§ 2255(f) to ...