Edwards v. USA
ORDER dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 7/14/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ams)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JERRY LEE EDWARDS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on periodic status review and Petitioner’s “Motion to
Vacate Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” [Doc. 1].
Petitioner filed his Section 2255 Motion to Vacate on April 30, 2021. [Doc. 1]. On initial
review under the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b) 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2255, the
Court found that the motion appeared untimely and that Petitioner failed to sign his motion under
penalty of perjury. [Doc. 2]. On June 1, 2021, the Court, therefore, granted Petitioner twenty (20)
days in which to provide an explanation as to why his 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 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). [Id.]. Finally, the Court advised Petitioner that his failure to return the Section 2255
form, signed under penalty of perjury and explaining why his petition should not be dismissed as
untimely, within twenty days of service of that Order, may result in dismissal of this action without
prejudice. [Id. at 5].
Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s Order. It appearing that Petitioner’s motion is
untimely in any event, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s motion without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion to Vacate [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate this action.
Signed: July 14, 2021
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?