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)

Download PDF
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?