United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Tramaine Benjamin
Cooley's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside, or correct the sentence imposed upon him (ECF No.
149). In response, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss
Defendant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (ECF No. 151).
For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that the
government's motion is properly granted and
Defendant's § 2255 motion is properly dismissed.
was charged in a four-count Second Superseding Indictment
(ECF No. 60). On August 6, 2010, he pleaded guilty to Counts
2 (Armed Bank Robbery) and 3 (Brandishing a Firearm During a
Robbery). This Court sentenced Defendant on December 14, 2010
to 57 months' imprisonment on Count 2 and 84 months'
imprisonment on Count 3 (ECF No. 135, Judgment). Defendant
did not appeal his convictions or sentences.
than six years later, on May 4, 2017, Defendant filed the
§ 2255 motion at bar (ECF No. 149), asserting that he is
“entitled to a resentencing following the Supreme
Court's decision in Dean v. United States, 581
U.S. ___ (2017)” (id. at PageID.639). On July
17, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss
Defendant's § 2255 motion as time-barred (ECF No.
172). Defendant filed a reply to the response (ECF No. 152).
prisoner who moves to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 must show that the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,
that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such
sentence, that the sentence was in excess of the maximum
authorized by law, or that it is otherwise subject to
collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To prevail on a
§ 2255 motion, the movant must demonstrate “the
existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a
substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty
plea or the jury's verdict.” Humphress v.
United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736
(6th Cir. 2003)).
1-year limitations period applies to § 2255 motions. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f). Section 2255(f) provides, in pertinent
part, that the one-year limitations period shall run from the
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
* * *
(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).
first to application of § 2255(f)(1), as a general
matter, convictions become “final” upon
conclusion of direct review. Sanchez-Castellano v. United
States, 358 F.3d 424, 426 (6th Cir. 2004). “[W]hen
a federal criminal defendant does not appeal to the court of
appeals, the judgment becomes final upon the expiration of
the period in which the defendant could have appealed to the
court of appeals, even when no notice of appeal was
filed.” Id. Here, the Judgment of Sentence was
entered on December 14, 2010 and became final fourteen days
later, on December 28, 2010. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(a) (providing for a 14-day ...