United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. CONRAD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's
Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. [Doc. 1].
Court has conducted an initial screening of the petition
under the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b)
28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2255 and finds that the motion
appears untimely and that the petition has not
been signed by Petitioner under penalty of perjury, Rule
2(b)(5), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2255 (motion to vacate must
be signed under penalty of perjury “by the movant or by
a person authorized to sign it for the movant”).
1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (the “AEDPA”). Among other things,
the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by imposing a
one-year statute of limitations period for the filing of a
motion to vacate. Such 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
(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
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
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.
U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Petitioner pleaded guilty to one charge of being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [Criminal No.
3:17-cr-00019-RJC-DCK (“CR”), Doc. 13: Acceptance
and Entry of Guilty Plea]. Plaintiff was sentenced on
September 27, 2017, to a term of 84 months' imprisonment.
Judgment was entered on October 11, 2017. [CR Doc. 20:
Judgment]. Petitioner did not appeal. As such, for purposes
of § 2255(f), Petitioner's conviction became final
on October 11, 2017, and Petitioner had one year, or until
October 11, 2018, within which to file a § 2255 motion.
a year late, on September 4, 2019, Petitioner filed a §
2255 Motion to Vacate. [Doc. 1]. Petitioner's motion
reads, in its entirety: “In light of the Supreme court
ruling on Rehaif v. United States of America 139
S.CT 2191.” [Doc. 1]. The Petitioner does not address
why his motion should not be dismissed as untimely.
Court will grant Petitioner twenty (20) days in which to
provide an explanation as to why the instant Section 2255
petition should not be dismissed as untimely, including any
reasons why equitable tolling should apply. See Hill v.
Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 706 (4th Cir. 2002); United
States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133 (4th Cir. 2008)
(remanding to district court pursuant to Hill for
determination of timeliness ...