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.

United States v. Carraza

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

August 8, 2019

UITED STATES OF AERICA, Respondent/Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA ESTHER CARRAZA, Petitioner/Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SIM LAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Defendant 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).[1]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 Petitioner's Motion.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         On April 15, 2016, Petitioner plead guilty to conspiring to possess, with the intent to distribute, a substance containing a detectable amount of heroin.[2] The court sentenced Petitioner to 87 months imprisonment and a judgment was entered on January 13, 2017.[3] 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 of appeal).

         Petitioner signed her Motion and placed it into the prison mailing system on October 17, 2018, [4] 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).[5] Respondent filed its Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2019, arguing that Petitioner's Motion is time barred.[6] Petitioner did not respond to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.

         II. Statute of Limitations

         The 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 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.

Id.

         III. Application of§ 2255(f) to ...


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.