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

statutepleamotionstatute of limitationspiracy

Related Cases

Litchfield v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 17417177

Facts

Austin Tyler Litchfield was charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty to two counts in exchange for the dismissal of two others, with a plea agreement that included a waiver of appellate rights. After being sentenced to 144 months in prison, Litchfield filed a motion to vacate his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and arguing that he was not informed about the First Step Act, which could have affected his sentence.

Issue

Whether Litchfield's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was timely and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Rule

A one-year statute of limitation applies to motions to vacate under § 2255, which can be extended under certain circumstances, including equitable tolling.

Analysis

The court determined that Litchfield's motion was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and that he failed to demonstrate any grounds for equitable tolling. His claims of ignorance of the law and COVID-19 restrictions were deemed insufficient to justify a late filing.

The court determined that Litchfield's motion was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and that he failed to demonstrate any grounds for equitable tolling.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Litchfield's motion to vacate with prejudice as time-barred, concluding that he did not meet the requirements for a timely filing or for equitable tolling.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in this case as the court dismissed Litchfield's motion to vacate, finding it time-barred.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1698338

Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383

Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, 345 N.J.Super. 119, 783 A.2d 756

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,816, 1980-81 Trade Cases P 63,796

People v. Fentress, 103 Misc.2d 179, 425 N.Y.S.2d 485