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. Hookfin

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 29, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FRANKIE HOOKFIN

         SECTION I

          ORDER

          LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is petitioner Frankie Hookfin's (“Hookfin”) motion[1] to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hookfin's motion is untimely, and it is, therefore, denied.

         I.

         On September 22, 2015, Hookfin pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and 280 grams or more of cocaine base and one count of using a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a drug trafficking crime that resulted in the death of an individual.[2] On April 21, 2016, the Court sentenced Hookfin to a term of imprisonment of 420 months.[3] Hookfin timely appealed his sentence and conviction.[4] However, Hookfin's appeal was dismissed, pursuant to his own motion, on August 25, 2016.[5]

         II.

         Petitions for habeas relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. This limitation period runs from the latest of four possible dates:

(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 first of these dates is the only one relevant here.[6] As stated, Hookfin was sentenced on April 21, 2016 and he filed an appeal that was dismissed upon his own appellate rights. It is anticipated that this Notice will likely be withdrawn shortly, as motion on August 25, 2016. Hookfin filed the instant petition nearly two years later, on July 12, 2018.[7] Hookfin's petition is untimely, as it was not filed-by any calculation-within one year of the date on which the judgment of his conviction became final.[8]

         Finally, the Court notes that Hookfin's petition is not subject to equitable tolling. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) one-year limitations period is subject to equitable tolling, but only “in rare and exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Petty,530 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Davis v. Johnson,158 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998)). “A § 2255 motion is subject to equitable tolling upon a federal prisoner's showing ‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way'” of filing his motion timely. United State v. Taylor, 14-192, 2018 WL 3619438, at *2 (E.D. La. July 30, 2018) (Fallon, J.) (quoting Petty, 530 F.3d at 364-65). The Fifth Circuit has found equitable tolling appropriate when the petitioner has been misled by the district court about the filing of his petition, but it has not found it appropriate due to a petitioner's pro se status. United States v. Wynn,292 F.3d ...


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.