United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
This
matter is before the Court on a Motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in
Federal Custody (ECF No. 32, “Second Motion to
Vacate”). The Government has filed an objection to the
Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 34, “Objection”). For
the reasons stated herein, the Second Motion to Vacate is
DENIED.
I.
Background[1]
On
August 6, 2012, Burdick entered a guilty plea to a single
count of robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. He was sentenced on October 22,
2012, to a term of 151 months of incarceration, followed by
three years of supervised release. Judgment entered on
October 24, 2012. Burdick did not appeal.
On June
24, 2016, Burdick, represented by counsel, filed a motion to
vacate sentence based on the Supreme Court's decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (ECF
No. 24, “First Motion to Vacate”). By Order dated
July 5, 2016 (ECF No. 26, “Order”), the Court
held the matter in abeyance pending clarification of the
applicability of Johnson to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). After the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890 (2017) (holding that the
U.S.S.G. were not subject to a vagueness challenge under
Johnson), Burdick moved to dismiss the First Motion
to Vacate. The Court granted the motion to dismiss by text
order on April 25, 2017.
Burdick
subsequently filed a letter motion for leave to file a new
motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255. The Court granted
Burdick's motion for leave on February 21, 2019, and
Burdick filed the Second Motion to Vacate on April 2, 2019.
On April 9, 2019, the Government filed its Objection to the
Second Motion to Vacate.
II. Law
A.
Standard of Review
Section
2255 provides in relevant part:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established
by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the
ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or
is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court
which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct
the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Generally, the grounds justifying
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) are limited. A court
may grant relief pursuant to § 2255 in instances where
the court finds a lack of jurisdiction, a constitutional
error, or a fundamental error of law. United States v.
Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). “[A]n error
of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless
the claimed error constituted a fundamental defect which
inherently results in a complete miscarriage of
justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Moreover, § 2255 is not a substitute for
direct appeal. Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d 769,
772 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing cases).
B.
Timeliness
The
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) of 1996 “imposed significant new
constraints on proceedings under section 2255. Some of these
constraints were temporal; for example, AEDPA established a
one-year statute of limitations for filing a section 2255
petition.” Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d
85, 96 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)) (internal footnote omitted). Section 2255(f) states:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall run ...