United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on movant's motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. The motion appears to be time-barred, and the Court
will order movant to show cause why the motion should not be
March 15, 2016, movant pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled
substances and controlled substance analogues, conspiracy to
introduce and receive misbranded drugs in interstate
commerce, and money laundering. On July 20, 2016, the Court
sentenced movant to 150 months' imprisonment. Movant did
not appeal. See United States v. Tabatt, No.
4:14-CR-187 JAR (E.D. Mo.).
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
exercise of due diligence.
district court may consider, on its own initiative, whether a
habeas action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). However,
before dismissing a habeas action as time-barred, the court
must provide notice to the movant. Id.
review of the instant motion indicates that it is time-barred
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) and is subject to summary
dismissal. An unappealed criminal judgment becomes final for
purposes of calculating the time limit for filing a motion
under § 2255 when the time for filing a direct appeal
expires. Moshier v. United States, 402 F.3d 116, 118
(2nd Cir. 2005). In this case, the judgment became final
fourteen days after the judgment was entered on July 20,
2016. Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1). As a result, the one-year
period of limitations under § 2255 expired on August 3,
motion, movant declares under penalty of perjury that she
placed the motion in the prison mail system on July 17, 2017.
In a letter dated March 15, 2018 attached to the motion,
however, movant states she is "resending my Motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence. There is a copy with the date and witness signature
that the BOP provide for me when I first sent out my 2255 to
the courts." (ECF No. 1-1 at 8).
Court received the motion April 5, 2018, and this is the only
§ 2255 motion movant has filed with the Court. The
envelope in which the motion was sent is date-stamped March
17, 2018, although the date stamp is ...