Hughes v. USA
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 Petitioner's 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the Case forthwith. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/7/2016. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO
VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT
SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL
CUSTODY
WILLIAM M. HUGHES,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Case No. 2:16-CV-913 TS
Criminal Case No. 2:15-CR-2 TS
Respondent.
District Judge Ted Stewart
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. For the reasons discussed below,
the Court will deny the Motion and dismiss this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner was charged in a Felony Information on January 6, 2015, with possession of
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Petitioner pleaded guilty on
February 17, 2015. Petitioner was sentenced on June 2, 2015, and Judgment was entered on June
5, 2015. An Amended Judgment was entered on June 12, 2015. Petitioner mailed the instant
Motion to the Court on August 17, 2016.
II. DISCUSSION
In general, a prisoner may not file a § 2255 motion more than one year after his
conviction becomes final. 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) provides,
1
See United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 744 (10th Cir. 1997).
1
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;
(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. 2
The Amended Judgment was entered in this case on June 12, 2015. Petitioner did not file
a direct appeal. Petitioner’s conviction thus became final under § 2255(f)(1) when the time to
file a direct appeal expired on June 26, 2015. 3 Petitioner did not submit his Motion until August
17, 2016, well over the one-year limitations period.
Petitioner argues that his Motion is timely because it rests on newly discovered evidence.
Petitioner does not explain what new facts his claims rest on or when he discovered them.
Moreover, Petitioner’s claims are based on alleged defects in the Information and the
government’s purported lack of standing to bring this action. Such “facts” would have been
discoverable at the outset of the criminal case.
Petitioner further argues that the Judgment is void and that there is no time limit under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) for attacking a void judgment. Petitioner fails to
adequately explain how the Judgment is void. Presumably, Petitioner is relying on his claim that
2
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
3
Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 577 (3d Cir. 1999) (“If a defendant does not
pursue a timely direct appeal to the court of appeals, his or her conviction and sentence become
final, and the statute of limitation begins to run, on the date on which the time for filing such an
appeal expired.”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (providing for fourteen day appeal period in
criminal cases).
2
the Information was defective and that the government lacked standing. These arguments lack
merit. The Information complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
7(c) and the government had standing to pursue the underlying criminal case. Therefore, Rule
60(b)(4) does not save his untimely claims.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Docket No. 1 in Case No. 2:16-CV-913 TS) is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, an
evidentiary hearing is not required. It is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, the Court
DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Case No. 2:16-CV-913 TS forthwith.
DATED this 7th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
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?