United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
ANDRE D. THOMPSON, Movant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon review of movant's
response to the order to show cause and movant's motion
for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 7 & 8. Having carefully
reviewed these filings, the Court concludes that movant's
arguments are without merit and that the instant action is
time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant's motion
for reconsideration, construed as additional arguments
against untimeliness, will be denied, and this case will be
dismissed without prejudice.
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-1 (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.
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
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f):
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.
movant in this case did not file an appeal, his criminal
judgment became final fourteen days after the judgment was
entered on April 26, 2018. See Moshier v. U.S., 402
F.3d 116, 118 (2d Cir. 2005); Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1). As
a result, the one-year period of limitations under §
2255 expired on about May 10, 2019. The original motion filed
in this case was not dated or signed by movant; however, it
was postmarked July 31, 2019. The motion appears time-barred.
As a result, on September 11, 2019, the Court ordered movant
to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed as
untimely. ECF No. 6.