Meraz-Salas v. United States of America
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant shall show cause in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order as to why his 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 motion to vacate should not be dismissed as time-barred. Show Cause Response due by 3/1/2015. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 15-195. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Edgar Meraz-Salas to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255.
Movant pleaded guilty to one count of a conspiracy to distribute in excess of
50 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ' 841(a)(1). He was sentenced
on July 13, 2010, to 120 months= imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release.
Movant did not appeal. In the instant action, movant seeks relief from his
conviction and sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing ' 2255 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides that a District Court may summarily dismiss a ' 2255 motion if it
plainly appears that the movant is not entitled to relief.
As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 now provides:
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
(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
(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.
A review of the instant motion indicates that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
' 2255(1) and subject to summary dismissal. Movant=s conviction became
final in 2010, but he did not file this motion to vacate until January 18, 2015. Thus,
it appears that the instant motion to vacate is untimely.
Before taking any further action, the Court will order movant to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. Movant is warned that if he
does not respond to this Order by the deadline set forth below, his motion will be
dismissed without further notice to him.
Respondent will not be ordered to respond to the motion to vacate at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant shall show cause in writing within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order as to why his 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 motion to
vacate should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2015.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES 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?