United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on an initial review of Petitioner's pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 1]. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's Section 2255 motion will be denied and dismissed.
Petitioner was named as the sole defendant in an Indictment. Petitioner was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count One); one count of knowingly possessing a stolen firearm which had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count Two); and one count of stealing a firearm which had moved in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(l) (Count Three). [Criminal Case No. 1:08-cr-00069, Doc. 1: Indictment].
Petitioner entered into a written plea agreement with the Government and agreed to plead guilty to Count Three of the Indictment in exchange for the Government's agreement to dismiss Counts One and Two. [ Id., Doc. 12]. On July 28, 2008, Petitioner appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell for his Plea and Rule 11 hearing. Petitioner's plea of guilty was accepted after the Court found that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. [ Id., Doc. 13: Acceptance and Entry of Guilty Plea].
On February 24, 2009, Petitioner appeared before the Honorable Lacy H. Thornburg for his sentencing hearing. The Court dismissed Counts One and Two on the Government's motion and sentenced Petitioner to a term of 80 months' imprisonment on Count Three. [ Id., Doc. 21: Judgment in a Criminal Case]. Petitioner did not appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, sentencing courts are directed to promptly examine motions to vacate, along with "any attached exhibits and the record of prior proceedings" in order to determine whether a petitioner is entitled to any relief. The Court has considered the record in this matter and applicable authority and concludes that this matter can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See Raines v. United States , 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), Congress has provided that a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under Section 2255. 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 ...