Williams v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00025
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Nore: DISTRICT Go IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT “""RNDISTRICr □□ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED ©" □□□□□ AMARILLO DIVISION CLERK.U.S Disp ALEX CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, By STRICT COURT oputy Petitioner, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION No. 2:19-CV-025-Z § (CRIMINAL ACTION No. 2:16-CR-36) § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE Before the Court is Petitioner Alex Christopher Williams’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Motion”) (ECF No. 2 at 12), submitted to the prison mail system for filing on January 31, 2019. The Respondent filed a Response to the Motion. See ECF No. 5. Petitioner did not file a Reply to the Response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion. BACKGROUND Petitioner moves to set aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On August 8, 2016, Petitioner pleaded guilty to convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See CR ECF No. 21 at 3.! The Court held a sentencing hearing and rendered judgment on December 12 and 13, 2016, respectively. See CR ECF Nos. 33, 34. Petitioner was sentenced to 72 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and three years of supervised release. CR ECF No. 34. On December 16, 2016, Petitioner filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. See CR ECF No. 36. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence by written opinion on October 24, 2017. CR ECF No. 41 at 1 (file stamped copy of appellate court

1 The Court will cite Petitioner’s criminal case record, United States v. Williams, 2:16-CR-36-Z-BR, as “CR ECF No.”

opinion, reflecting date of issuance of the opinion). The mandate from the Fifth Circuit was issued on November 15, 2017. CR ECF No. 42. Petitioner asserts that his Motion is timely, as he submitted his Motion for filing on January 31, 2019 — one year and 90 days after the mandate was issued by the Fifth Circuit. The Government argues the 90-day period for finality of conviction started when the opinion affirming the conviction and sentence was issued on October 24, 2017 — not when the mandate was issued — rendering the filing deadline for the Motion as January 22, 2019. LEGAL STANDARD “Section 2255 provides relief for a petitioner who can establish that either (1) his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” United States v. Seyfert, 67 F.3d 544, 546 (Sth Cir. 1995) (internal marks omitted). “[A] defendant is limited to alleging errors of a constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude.” United States v. Samuels, 59 F.3d 526, 528 (Sth Cir. 1995) (internal marks omitted). ANALYSIS The Fifth Circuit made clear how it determines finality: The issuance of the mandate does not determine when a conviction is final for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations. See United States v. Gamble, 208 F.3d 536, 536 (Sth Cir. 2000) (per curiam). And under Supreme Court Rule 13(3), the 90-day period for seeking a writ of certiorari runs from the date of entry of judgment, not the date the mandate issues. The binding law indicates that [the movant] should have known that . . . the date the original opinion issued from this court[] was the relevant date for limitations purposes, not the date the mandate issued. United States v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361, 365 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that “[t]he issuance of the mandate does not determine when a conviction is final[,]” but rather, “the date the original opinion issued” from the Fifth Circuit).

Petitioner did not file a Reply to the Response asserting equitable tolling, statutory tolling, or actual innocence. As such, Petitioner’s Motion is untimely and subject to denial on that ground. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate. See ECF No. 2. SO ORDERED. February S00

MAYTHEW J. KACSMARYK TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE