Christian v. USA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DENIES the petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 1), dismisses this action, declines to issue a certificate of appealability and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/11/2018. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE L. CHRISTIAN,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01213-JPG
-------------------------------------------Crim. Case No. 4:14-cr-40062-JPG-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Maurice L. Christian’s Motion (Doc. 1) to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, Mr.
Christian’s petition does not survive threshold review.
On November 19, 2014, the petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. The
Court sentenced him on March 25, 2015 to 140 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised
release, a fine of $100.00, and a special assessment of $100.00. The judgment of conviction became
final on March 27, 2015. The petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
The petitioner then filed this pro se § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) over two years later in
November 2017, making an abundance of constitutional claims. But an individual seeking relief
under § 2255 must file his motion within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 2255(f).
Prisoners used to be able to file motions under § 2255 at any time during their sentences. However, on
April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.
L. No. 104-132, tit. I, § 106 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a) & (b), 2255(f)), which added a one-year
limitations period for a motion attacking a sentence. The one-year limitations period runs from the
latest of four events:
(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;
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
The Court has performed a preliminary review of the § 2255 motion and has determined
that it is plain from the motion and the record of the prior proceedings that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief because he did not file his § 2255 within the one-year limitations period. The
judgment of conviction became final on March 27, 2015, but the petitioner filed this § 2255 over
two years later in November 2017. Moreover, none of the other exceptions enumerated in 2255(f)
apply here. Accordingly, the Court must deny the petitioner’s motion.
The Court must also grant or deny a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Section 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The petitioner has made no such
showing. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Pursuant to Rule
11(a), the petitioner may not appeal the denial of a certificate of appealability, but he may seek a
certificate from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
DENIES the petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 1);
DISMISSES this action;
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: JANUARY 11, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?