Morban-Lopez v. USA
Filing
2
ORDER re 1 Pro Se MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) re: Criminal Case No. 3:99cr109. Petitioner shall have 20 days from entry of this Order in which to explain to the Court why the Section 2255 Motion to Vacate should not be dismissed as untimely. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/22/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-237-GCM
(3:99-cr-109-GCM-3)
JOSE JULIO MORBAN-LOPEZ,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. No. 1).
I.
Initial Screening
The Court has conducted an initial screening of the petition under Rule 4(b) and finds that
it appears that the motion is untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
II.
Discussion
In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the
“AEDPA”). Among other things, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by imposing a one-year
statute of limitations period for the filing of a motion to vacate. Such amendment 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 becomes final;
(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 governmental action;
1
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially 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.
§ 2255(f).
Here, Petitioner pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking
crime and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2.
(Criminal Case Nos. 3:99-cr-109-GCM-3, Doc. No. 37: Plea Agreement; Doc. No. 120:
Judgment). On February 19, 2002, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 87 months of
imprisonment. Judgment was entered on March 6, 2002, and Petitioner did not appeal. (Id.).
Petitioner’s conviction, therefore, became final ten days later, when his time to file a notice of
appeal expired. See United States v. Clay, 537 U.S. 522, 524-25 (2003) (when a defendant does
not appeal, his conviction becomes final when the opportunity to appeal expires); FED. R. APP. P.
4(b)(1)(A). Petitioner then had one year in which to file a timely petition. Petitioner did not
place the Section 2255 motion to vacate, however, in the prison system for mailing until April
24, 2017. Because Petitioner filed his motion to vacate more than one year after his conviction
became final, his motion to vacate is untimely under § 2255(f)(1), and none of the other time
periods set forth under § 2255(f) appears to apply to render the petition timely.
The Court will grant Petitioner 20 days in which to provide an explanation as to why the
instant Section 2255 petition should not be dismissed as untimely, including any reasons why
equitable tolling should apply. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 706 (4th Cir. 2002); United
2
States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133 (4th Cir. 2008) (remanding to district court pursuant to
Hill for determination of timeliness of § 2255 Motion).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner shall have 20 days from entry of this Order in which to explain to the Court
why the Section 2255 Motion to Vacate should not be dismissed as untimely. If
Petitioner does not file such explanation within 20 days from entry of this Order, the
petition may be dismissed without further notice.
Signed: May 22, 2017
3
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?