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.

United States v. Craig

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

July 7, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHARLES P. CRAIG Civil Action No. 14-2238

          HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before this Court is a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Record Document 31) filed by Petitioner Charles P. Craig (“Craig”). Craig also filed a separate Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion. See Record Document 34. Craig seeks an order from the Court vacating, setting aside, or correcting his sentence such that his term of imprisonment is not outside the advisory guidelines range. For the reasons set forth below, Craig's Motion is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         On October 10, 2010, Craig pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, § 922(g)(1). See Record Documents 1, 22, and 23. On February 3, 2011, Craig was sentenced to 120 months in prison. See Record Document 27. His federal sentence was to run concurrently with his state sentence. See id. The judgment was entered on February 10, 2011. See Record Document 28. An amended judgment was filed on March 1, 2011, reducing Craig's sentence to a term of 100 months and 8 days to run concurrently with the undischarged term of imprisonment he was serving. See Record Document 29. Craig's advisory guideline range was 51 to 63 months. See Record Document 30 at 2. Craig did not file a Notice of Appeal.

         Now before the Court is Craig's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was filed on June 30, 2014. See Record Document 31. In his Motion, Craig argues (1) ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) that his sentence was illegal because the Court increased his sentence to ensure that he had time to get drug treatment. See id. at 3-5; see also Record Documents 34 and 40. Before considering the merits of the instant Motion, the Court must decide the issue of timeliness, as the Government argues that Craig did not file his motion in accordance with the applicable statute of limitations. See Record Document 35.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         To review the merits of a motion under § 2255, it must be filed within the statute of limitations. Title 28, United States Code, § 2255(f) provides:

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.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The Court will consider subparts 1-4 individually, and will also address Craig's argument that the “actual innocence” exception applies such that the Court may ...


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.