Eschevarria v. USA - 2255
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER as to Andres Echevarria; GRANTING 824 Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 818 Motion to Vacate; directing Clerk to CLOSE GJH-16-2470. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/10/2022. (c/m 1/10/2021 ybs, Deputy Clerk)
Case 8:16-cv-02470-GJH Document 2 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
ANDRES ECHEVARRIA
*
Petitioner,
*
v.
Civil Case No.: GJH-16-2470
Crim Case No.: GJH-9-598
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
*
Respondent.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming
that he was entitled to release pursuant to the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251
(2015). ECF No. 819. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), a 1-year statute of limitations runs from
the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court issued its opinion in Johnson on June 26, 2015. Therefore, the deadline for Petitioner’s
Motion was June 26, 2016. On that date, Petitioner filed a request for extension but did not provide
sufficient justification and the request was never granted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is
untimely.1
Thus, it is hereby ORDERED, by the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, that:
1. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 824, is GRANTED;
2. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, ECF No. 818, is DENIED; and
1
Additionally, even a cursory review of the merits of this claim demonstrate that the Johnson decision would not
impact Petitioner’s sentence.
1
Case 8:16-cv-02470-GJH Document 2 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
3. The Clerk shall close GJH-16-2470.
Date: January 10, 2022
__/s/________________________
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
2
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?