United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR MOVANT TO SHOW
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on movant Larry Newman's
motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Because the motion appears to be
time-barred, the Court will order movant to show cause why it
should not be dismissed as such.
29, 2011, movant pleaded guilty to Interference with
Interstate Commerce by Threats or Violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a); Carrying a Firearm in Furtherance of a
Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c);
and Kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).
See U.S. v. Larry Newman, Case No. 4:11-cr-11-SNLJ-2
(E.D. Mo. Nov. 2, 2011). On November 2, 2011, the Court
sentenced movant to serve a total of 294 months'
imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release. Movant did not appeal his convictions or
than six years later, on March 21, 2018,  movant filed the
instant motion to vacate, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Therein, movant asserts that he is entitled to
resentencing based upon 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.
Under 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 ...