Wallace v. USA

Filing 5

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action [Doc. # 4 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/22/2017. (CBL)

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
Before the Court is movant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of
movant’s motion to vacate set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court
dismissed his motion to vacate as time-barred on August 27, 2017.
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.
In movant’s motion to vacate his sentence, movant argued 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 argued that the Supreme 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. He repeats these same arguments in his
motion for reconsideration.
The Court found these arguments unavailing in movant’s motion to vacate, and movant’s
motion for reconsideration has not rendered a different decision.

Neither Mathis nor Molina-Martinez announced a new rule retroactively available on
collateral review. Mathis was a statutory interpretation case and Molina-Martinez involved an
application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Neither case involved a substantive constitutional
challenge under the Due Process Clause. Therefore, the limitations period was not reopened
under § 2255(f)(3).
Movant has not provided the Court with allegations that would entitle him to equitable
tolling.1 As a result, there are no grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal of his § 2255 as
time-barred.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of this action [Doc. #4] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2017.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Although movant states that when he was in MDOC custody he “had no access to any federal
law material to adequately combat his conviction and sentence appropriately,” this statement, in
and of itself, is not enough grounds for an equitable tolling defense. AGenerally, a litigant seeking
equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his
rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.@ Holland v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Equitable tolling is Aan exceedingly narrow window of
relief.@ Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 2001). APro se status, lack of legal knowledge
or legal resources, confusion about or miscalculations of the limitations period, or the failure to
recognize the legal ramifications of actions taken in prior post-conviction proceedings are
inadequate to warrant equitable tolling.@ Shoemate v. Norris, 390 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2004)
(quotation marks omitted); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding
that Aeven in the case of an unrepresented prisoner alleging a lack of legal knowledge or legal
resources, equitable tolling has not been warranted@).

2