Wallace v. USA

Filing 2

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Antonio Wallace to vacate, set aside, orcorrect sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/17/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTONIO WALLACE,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV2258 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Antonio Wallace to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied.
On June 17, 2015, movant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. United States v. Wallace, No.
4:15-CR-37 HEA.

On September 14, 2015, the Court sentenced him to 137 months’

imprisonment. He did not appeal. Nor did he file a timely § 2255 motion.
Movant argues that recent Supreme Court cases that are retroactively available on
collateral review dictate that his Criminal History Category be reduced from V to IV.
Specifically, he argues that the Court’s holdings in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), and Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1338 (2016), require the Court to
correct his sentence.
The motion is time-barred. Neither Mathis nor Molina-Martinez announced a new rule
retroactively available on collateral review. Mathis was a statutory interpretation case, not a
substantive constitutional challenge under the Due Process Clause. See Dawkins v. United
States, 829 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Mathis did not announce [a new rule made

retroactive by the Supreme Court]; it is a case of statutory interpretation.”); see also United
States v. Evenson, ---F.3d---, 2017 WL 3203547 (8th Cir. July 28, 2017) (“As the Supreme Court
presented it, the decision [in Mathis] simply reflected the ‘straightforward’ application of
decades of precedent.”).

And Molina-Martinez involved an application of the Sentencing

Guidelines, which are not subject to attack under the Due Process Clause. See Beckles v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 894 (2017). Therefore, the limitations period was not reopened under
§ 2255(f)(3).
There are no available arguments that might entitle movant to equitable tolling. As a
result, this action is dismissed.
Finally, movant has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether he is entitled to relief. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Antonio Wallace to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 17th day of August, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2