United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Winchester
CHAD M. TAYLOR, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“2255
Motion”) [Doc. 36], and a motion to stay the resolution
of the 2255 Motion [Doc. 37] filed by federal prisoner, Chad
Taylor (“Petitioner”). Respondent United States of
America (the “Government”) filed a response in
opposition to the 2255 Motion [Doc. 42] and this matter is
now ripe. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's 2255
Motion will be DENIED and DISMISSED
2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to distributing cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(C), and to
possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) [Doc. 16]. In his plea agreement, Petitioner
waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence unless
he received a sentence “above the sentencing guideline
range or any applicable mandatory minimum (whichever is
greater) [as] determined by the district court.” [Doc.
16 at Page ID # 35]. He also “knowingly and voluntarily
waive[d] the right to file any motions or pleadings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255” with the sole exception of a
§ 2255 motion involving claims of “ineffective
assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct not known
to the defendant by the time of the entry of judgment”
[Doc. 16 at Page ID # 35-36].
had several prior Tennessee drug convictions, including a
1996 conviction for possession of Schedule II narcotics
[Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) at
¶ 35]; a 2002 conviction for selling at least half a
gram of Schedule II narcotics [PSR ¶ 36]; and a 2002
conviction for selling less than half a gram of Schedule II
narcotics [PSR ¶ 37]. Based on those convictions,
Petitioner was subject to an enhanced maximum possible
sentence of thirty years' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(C) [PSR ¶ 56]. Those convictions also
resulted in a determination that Petitioner was a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, with a sentencing range
of 188 to 235 months' imprisonment under the applicable
advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“Guidelines”) [PSR ¶¶ 27, 40 &
58]. Petitioner did not object to the PSR [PSR Addendum].
was sentenced to a below-Guidelines term of 148 months'
imprisonment in a Judgment filed on May 25, 2011 [Doc. 30].
Petitioner did not appeal, so his conviction became final at
the expiration of the time for seeking such review, June 8,
2011. Thus, the § 2255 limitation period expired June 8,
2012. Well over two years later-on September 2,
2014-Petitioner's 2255 Motion was filed [Doc. 36].
prisoner in federal custody may file a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 “claiming the right to be released upon the ground
that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or
is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) establishes a statute of
limitations applicable to collateral challenges under §
4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the
United States District Courts requires a district court to
summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion if “it plainly
appears from the face of the motion, the attached exhibits,
and the record of the prior proceedings that the movant is
not entitled to relief.” See also Pettigrew v.
United States, 480 F.2d 681, 684 (6th Cir. 1973)
(“A motion to vacate sentence under § 2255 can be
denied for the reason that it states “only bald legal
conclusions with no supporting factual allegations.”
(quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 19
(1963))). If the motion is not summarily dismissed under Rule
4(b), Rule 8 requires the court to determine, after a review
of the answer and the records of the case, whether an
evidentiary hearing is required.
2255 Motion, Petitioner seeks § 2255 relief on the
grounds that (1) his attorney was allegedly constitutionally
ineffective by not filing a notice of appeal; and (2) he is
allegedly no longer subject to an enhanced 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(C) thirty-year sentencing maximum in light of
Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013) and
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013). The
Government argues Petitioner's § 2255 claims are
time barred, waived, and meritless and also submitted an
affidavit of Petitioner's attorney stating Petitioner
never asked her to file an appeal.
Petitioner's 2255 Motion is Untimely
to the AEDPA, a one-year statute of limitations applies to
the filing of a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f). The one-year limitation period commences on
the latest of one of the four dates set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f). As pertinent here, ...