Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edwards v. United States

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division

September 3, 2014

SHEAMEAKA LASHAUN EDWARDS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 15, 2012, federal inmate Sheameaka Lashaun Edwards ("Edwards") filed this pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. No. 1. Edwards challenges her 2004 guilty-plea convictions and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 1 and 2), and carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 3). The government maintains Edwards's § 2255 motion is time-barred because it was filed after expiration of the one-year limitation period. Doc. No. 4. The court concludes the government is correct and that the § 2255 motion should be denied because it was not filed within the time allowed by federal law.

II. DISCUSSION

A. One-year Limitation Period

The timeliness of Edwards's § 2255 motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). That section 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;
(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

On March 15, 2004, Edwards pled guilty under a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 1 and 2), and carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 3). On June 7, 2007, she was sentenced to a total of 180 months in prison (concurrent terms of 120 months for the distribution counts followed by a consecutive term of 60 months for the § 924(c) count). Judgment was entered by the district court on June 10, 2004. Edwards took no appeal. Therefore, her conviction was "final" on June 21, 2004, the first business day after June 20, 2004.[1] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), Edwards had until June 21, 2005, to file a timely § 2255 motion. Her § 2255 motion filed on August 15, 2012, is untimely under § 2255(f)(1).

Edwards maintains her § 2255 motion is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because it was filed within one year after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011). See Doc. No. 1 at 12. In Simmons, the Fourth Circuit applied Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010), to find that a federal defendant's prior North Carolina conviction for non-aggravated, first-time marijuana possession was for an offense not "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, " and thus did not qualify as a predicate felony conviction for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act. Simmons, 649 F.3d at 248-49. Carachuri, which was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2010, dealt with under what circumstances a prior conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance can constitute an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). The Supreme Court held that the statutory enhancements for recidivism regarding simple possession under 18 U.S.C. § 844 do not render a prior conviction a conviction for an aggravated felony, where recidivism is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.