United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on movant Deidrick Reed's
motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The motion appears to be time-barred, and
the Court will order movant to show cause why his motion
should not be summarily dismissed.
March 20, 2014, movant was charged in a three-count
Indictment: Count I charged movant with Maliciously Conveying
False Information Regarding an Explosive Device, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e); Count 2 charged movant with Bank
Robbery through the use of a Dangerous Weapon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); and
Count 3 charged movant with the Use of a Firearm During a
Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
17, 2014, movant pleaded guilty to all three counts of the
Indictment. The Court sentenced defendant on September 15,
2014, to a total of 180 months'
imprisonment. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or
than three years later, on October 10, 2017, movant filed the
instant motion to vacate brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, asserting that he is "entitled to a resentencing
following the Supreme Court's decision in Dean v.
United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017).
4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts provides that a district court
may summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion if it plainly
appears that the movant is not entitled to relief.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f):
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest
(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, 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