United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Doc. No. 1). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's motion to vacate will be denied, and the § 2255 petition will be dismissed as untimely.
On December 14, 2004, the Grand Jury for the Western District of North Carolina charged Petitioner with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). (Criminal Case No. 5:04-cr-66, Doc. No. 1: Indictment). The Government subsequently filed notice of its intent to seek enhanced penalties under the Controlled Substances Act, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, based on Petitioner's prior conviction in 2002 in Catawba County Superior Court for possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine. ( Id., Doc. No. 2: Information).
On March 6, 2006, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to the drug offense and to possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. ( Id., Doc. No. 25 at 1: Plea Agreement). In exchange, the Government agreed to dismiss the felon-in-possession count and to withdraw its § 851 notice. (Id. at 1-3). The parties also set forth a series of joint stipulations regarding the calculation of the advisory guidelines range. (Id. at 2). In light of the Government's concessions, Petitioner waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in a direct appeal or collateral attack, with the exception of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or related to his sentence, to the extent the sentence imposed was inconsistent with the parties' stipulations. (Id. at 4-5).
Consistent with the plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty before this Court in a hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ( Id., Doc. No. 46: Plea Hrg. Tr.). Petitioner acknowledged that he was, in fact, guilty of the drug conspiracy offense, and affirmed that he understood he was expressly waiving the right to challenge his conviction and sentence in a post-conviction proceeding. (Id. at 14-16). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court accepted Petitioner's plea. (Id. at 16).
At sentencing, after the Government withdrew its § 851 notice, this Court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 92 to 115 months for the drug offense, based on an offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of VI, to be followed by a mandatory consecutive term of five years in prison for the § 924(c) offense. This Court ultimately sentenced Petitioner at the low end of the guidelines range to 92 months in prison for the drug offense, followed by a consecutive term of 60 months for the § 924(c) offense, for a total of 152 months in prison. ( Id., Doc. No. 33: Judgment).
The Court entered judgment on September 25, 2007, and Petitioner appealed. ( Id., Doc. No. 36: Notice of Appeal). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion dated August 4, 2008. United States v. Wheeler, 286 Fed.App'x 3 (4th Cir. 2008). On April 21, 2009, this Court granted Petitioner's first motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, reducing Petitioner's sentence on the drug count to 77 months in prison in light of retroactively applicable amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. ( Id., Doc. No. 57: Order). On May 10, 2012, this Court denied Petitioner's second § 3582 motion, declining to reduce Petitioner's sentence further in light of additional retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines because of a series of infractions Petitioner incurred while incarcerated. ( Id., Doc. No. 66: Order).
Petitioner placed the motion to vacate in the prison mail system on or around March 1, 2013, and it was stamp-filed in this Court on March 6, 2013. See (Doc. No. 1 at 13). In his motion, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief under the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011). On December 2, 3013, this Court ordered the Government to respond, and the Government filed its brief in response on January 31, 2014. (Doc. Nos. 2; 4).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that courts are to promptly examine motions to vacate, along with "any attached exhibits and the record of prior proceedings..." in order to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set forth therein. After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the argument presented by the Petitioner can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and governing case law. See Raines v. United States , 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
A. Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the "AEDPA"). Among other things, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to include a one-year statute of limitations period for the filing of a ...