United States of America v. Calvert
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 8/17/2017: The government's motion to dismiss 5 Petitioner Fred Calvert's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 1 as untimely is granted. Calvert's § 2255 is dismissed. The Court declines to certify any issue for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). Civil case terminated. [For further details see Statement]. Mailed notice (is, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
United States of America,
v.
Fred Calvert,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: 17 C 4529
Judge Ronald Guzmán
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The government’s motion to dismiss [5] Petitioner Fred Calvert’s motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [1] as untimely is granted. Calvert’s
§ 2255 is dismissed. The Court declines to certify any issue for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). Civil case terminated.
STATEMENT
Calvert plead guilty on January 14, 2010 to Counts One and Two of the relevant
indictment, charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, respectively.
(U.S. v. Calvert, No. 07 CR 707-3 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. # 176.) On June 28, 2010, the Court
sentenced Calvert to 188 months imprisonment on Count One and 60 months imprisonment on
Count Two, to run consecutive to Count One, for a total sentence of 248 months. On direct
appeal, Calvert argued that he should not have received a consecutive sentence under § 924(c),
which the Seventh Circuit rejected in 2011. (Id., Dkt. # 200.) This Court subsequently entered
an amended judgment on March 19, 2015 based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, reducing Calvert’s sentence to 211 months. (Id., Dkt. # 209.) Calvert then filed the
instant § 2255 motion arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the § 924(c)
count based on constructive possession.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) provides for a one-year time period in which a federal prisoner
may file a federal habeas petition, running 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Subsections (2)-(4) are not applicable here. Therefore, under subsection (1), because
Petitioner did not appeal his reduced sentence, it became final for post conviction purposes on
April 2, 2015, fourteen days after it was entered. See Smith v. United States, No.
08-CR-188-BBC, 2015 WL 7721845, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 30, 2015). Thus, Calvert had one
year from April 2, 2015, or April 2, 2016, to file his § 2255 motion. He did not file the motion
until June 11, 2017; accordingly, it is untimely.1 Calvert’s apparent attempt to circumvent the
statute of limitations by characterizing the instant motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) and not § 2255 is unavailing. See United States v. Scott, 414 F.3d 815, 816 (7th
Cir. 2005) (“[A] motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) must be treated as a collateral attack when
the prisoner makes a ‘claim’ within the scope of § 2244(b).”). The Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
Date: August 17, 2017
1
__________________________________
Ronald A. Guzmán
United States District Judge
To the extent Calvert’s motion is directed toward his initial judgment of conviction and
sentencing, it is also barred as untimely.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?