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.

Hayes v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

December 18, 2017

MICAH T. HAYES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Doc. No. 1), and the Government's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 4).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Micah T. Hayes was charged with driving while under the influence on the United States Army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, which assimilates North Carolina General Statute § 20-138.1 (Count One), and carrying a concealed weapon after consuming alcohol in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, which assimilates North Carolina General Statute § 14-415.11(c) (Count Two). United States v. Hayes, 5:13MJ1232 (E.D. N.C. July 10, 2013), ECF No. 1. Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count One in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and was sentenced to one year of probation, commencing on July 10, 2013. (Id., ECF Nos. 11 & 12). The Government dismissed Count Two. (Id., ECF No. 11). The Eastern District of North Carolina transferred jurisdiction to this District in September 2013. (Id., ECF No. 12).

         Three months later, Petitioner violated the terms of his probation and was arrested. United States v. Hayes, 3:13MJ288 (W.D. N.C. 2013), ECF entry of Dec. 19, 2013. He admitted violating the conditions of probation, and this Court sentenced him to an additional year of probation to commence at the end of the original term in July 2014. (Id., ECF No. 9). This Court entered judgment on February 7, 2014. (Id.).

         On January 10, 2015, Petitioner was charged in state court with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. See (Doc. No. 4-1, Gov. Ex. 1). He was convicted in June 2015 and sentenced to eight years and four months of imprisonment. (Id.). He is currently incarcerated at the Piedmont Correctional Institution in Salisbury, North Carolina. (Id.).

         Petitioner filed the present Motion to Vacate on July 24, 2017, arguing that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because this Court has not terminated his probationary sentence. He also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel during the 2013 revocation proceedings because his attorney did not advise him of his right to appeal. (Civ. Doc. No. 1 at 4-5, 13). The Government filed the pending Motion to Dismiss on December 4, 2017. (Doc. No. 4). On December 6, 2017, this Court issued an Order advising Petitioner of his right to respond to the Government's Motion. (Doc. No. 5). Petitioner filed his Reply on December 14, 2017. (Doc. No. 6).

         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 Motion to Vacate can be resolved without a response from the Government or an evidentiary hearing based upon the record and governing case law. See Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).

         III. DISCUSSION

         In 1996, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the “AEDPA”). The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by imposing a one-year statute of limitations for filing a motion to vacate. That amendment 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 and made retroactively applicable to ...

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.