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.

Young v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga

November 8, 2016

EDWARD YOUNG, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          CURTIS L. COLLIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. 50.][1] On June 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se supplement challenging his enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), in light of the Supreme Court's invalidation of that provision's residual clause in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). [Doc. 52.] The United States responded in opposition to both the petition and supplemental claim. [Doc. 56.] Petitioner replied in turn. [Doc. 57.]

         For the reasons that follow, the request to amend [Doc. 52] will be GRANTED and the amended petition [Docs. 50, 52] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The facts surrounding Petitioner's convictions were recited by the Sixth Circuit as follows:

In 2010 or 2011, [Petitioner] helped a neighbor sort and sell her late husband's possessions. When he discovered a box of seven shotgun shells in the collection, he stored the shells in a drawer where they would be safe from his four children. Because [Petitioner] had previously been convicted of a number of felonies, all burglary-related offenses between 1990 and 1992, it was a crime for him to possess ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was unaware of this legal disability.
Police officers later showed up on [Petitioner's] doorstep investigating recent burglaries at an auto repair shop and a storage building. During the consent search, officers found several items reported stolen, though it is unclear whether the items were associated with the recent burglaries. They also found the box of seven shotgun shells in a drawer, which [Petitioner] readily admitted to possessing.

United States v. Young, 766 F.3d 621, 623 (6th Cir. 2014).

         On May 1, 2012 a federal grand jury for the Eastern District of Tennessee filed a one count indictment against Petitioner, charging Petitioner with a single count of being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Doc. 1.] On October 29, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the sole charge against him. [Doc. 29.] The Court, finding Petitioner's prior first and second-degree burglary convictions qualified him as an armed career criminal, subsequently sentenced Petitioner to 180 months' imprisonment. [Doc. 38.] On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. [Doc. 45.] The Supreme Court denied certiorari. [Doc. 47.]

         On February 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging multiple theories of ineffective assistance [Doc. 50] and a supplemental claim alleging an invalid sentence enhancement under the ACCA in light of the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) [Doc. 52].

         The matter is now ripe for review.

         II. TIMELINESS OF PETITION AND SUPPLEMENT

         A. TIMELINESS OF PETITION

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), the one-year statute of limitations applicable to collateral challenges under § 2255 runs 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). In the case of a direct appeal, a petitioner's conviction becomes final upon either denial of certiorari or expiration of the ninety-day period in which to seek such review. Clay v. United States,537 U.S. 522, 525, 532 (2003). Thus, Petitioner's conviction became final for purposes of ...


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.