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.

Thompson v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 11, 2019

ANDRE D. THOMPSON, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence brought 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 summarily dismissed.

         Background

         On April 25, 2017, movant pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). United States v. Thompson, No. 4:16-CR-355-RLW-l (E.D. Mo. Aug. 10, 2016). On April 26, 2018, the Court sentenced movant to a term of 62 months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Movant did not appeal.

         On August 2, 2019, movant filed a pro se document construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2019, the Court found the motion defective because it had not been signed by movant and it had not been drafted on a Court form, as required by local and federal rules. ECF No. 4. The Court ordered movant to file a signed, amended motion with the Court, which movant did on September 5, 2019. ECF No. 5. Movant asserts one ground for relief in his amended motion: that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.

         Discussion

         Rule 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 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.

         A 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 ...


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.