Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatutehearingpleamotionhabeas corpusleasestatute of limitationsrespondent
motionhabeas corpusleaserespondent

Related Cases

Blue Diamond Coal Company v. Boggs, 444 U.S. 836, 100 S.Ct. 71 (Mem), 62 L.Ed.2d 47
View Case »
Carson v. Facilities Development Co., 36 Cal.3d 830, 686 P.2d 656, 206 Cal.Rptr. 136
View Case »
State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 578 S.E.2d 32
View Case »
U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 96 A.L.R.2d 116, 9 A.F.T.R.2d 366, 62-1 USTC P 9111
View Case »
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Downing v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 1519385

Facts

Movant was indicted in 2009 for drug and weapons charges and pled guilty in 2010 to a lesser offense, receiving a sentence of 66 months in prison. After his release, he was convicted of burglary in 2017 and sentenced to 3.5 years in state prison. Movant filed a motion in 2017 claiming he did not receive a prompt preliminary hearing for a supervised release violation and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance. The Respondent argued that the motion was untimely and precluded by the waiver in Movant's plea agreement.

Movant was indicted in 2009 for drug and weapons charges and pled guilty in 2010 to a lesser offense, receiving a sentence of 66 months in prison.

Issue

Whether Movant's claims regarding the revocation of his supervised release are properly subject to a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and whether the motion is timely.

Whether Movant's claims regarding the revocation of his supervised release are properly subject to a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and whether the motion is timely.

Rule

A motion to vacate under § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for federal prisoners to challenge their sentences, but it only applies to claims related to imposed sentences. Claims related to pending revocation proceedings are more appropriately treated under § 2241.

A motion to vacate under § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for federal prisoners to challenge their sentences, but it only applies to claims related to imposed sentences.

Analysis

The court determined that Movant's claims regarding the revocation of his supervised release did not arise from an imposed sentence, as he was not in federal custody for the revocation at the time of filing. Therefore, the claims were not properly subject to a motion to vacate under § 2255. The court also found that the motion was untimely, as it was filed well beyond the one-year statute of limitations.

The court determined that Movant's claims regarding the revocation of his supervised release did not arise from an imposed sentence, as he was not in federal custody for the revocation at the time of filing.

Conclusion

The court denied Movant's motion to vacate as untimely and without merit, concluding that the claims related to the revocation proceedings should be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241.

The court denied Movant's motion to vacate as untimely and without merit, concluding that the claims related to the revocation proceedings should be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241.

Who won?

Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found Movant's claims to be untimely and without merit.

Respondent prevailed in the case because the court found Movant's claims to be untimely and without merit.

You must be