United States District Court, District of Columbia
MAURICE ALLEN, Defendant, Pro Se.
MAURICE ALLEN, Defendant, represented by James W. Beane, Jr..
FRANCISCO BRITTINGHAM, Defendant, represented by Peter
Richard Maignan, THE LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT A. CALLIHAN, PLLC.
Plaintiff, represented by Barry Wiegand, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, Emile Christopher Thompson, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE & Thomas P. Swanton, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
2006, a jury convicted defendant Andre Maurice Allen on two
counts of unlawful distribution of phencyclidine
("PCP"). Judge Richard Roberts sentenced defendant
to 210 months of imprisonment. The defendant filed a notice
of appeal, but his appeal was dismissed for want of
prosecution on December 9, 2008. See Mandate of D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals [Dkt. No. 345]. On February 3, 2016, Judge
Roberts denied defendant's motion to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines [Dkt. No. 391]. On March
15, 2016, defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging
that his criminal history score had been miscalculated during
sentencing and that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct his Sentence at 5 [Dkt. No. 395]. On May 3, 2016, the
defendant filed a motion for leave to amend his original
Section 2255 motion, alleging two new grounds for his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and an additional due
process claim. Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend at
1-2 [Dkt. No. 400]. And in his reply brief responding to the
government's opposition, defendant raised, for the first
time, an actual innocence argument. Defendant's Reply to
the Government's Opposition at 3-12. After careful
consideration of the parties' briefs and the relevant
legal authorities, the Court will deny defendant's motion
U.S.C. § 2255 allows a prisoner in custody to "move the
court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or
correct the sentence." But the Court must first
determine whether the motion is timely, because the statute
imposes a one-year statute of limitations on such motions.
See United States v. Cicero, 214 F.3d 199, 202 (D.C.
Cir. 2000). Untimely motions, absent equitable tolling, are
time-barred and must be dismissed. See id. at 205. The
one-year limitations period runs from the latest of:
(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.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
conviction became final when his appeal was dismissed for
want of prosecution on December 9, 2008. Because none of the
exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2)-(4) applies,
defendant's one-year limitations period ...