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. Teague

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

May 12, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CORRIE L. TEAGUE, Defendant-Movant.

          ORDER

          VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Defendant-Movant Corrie L. Teague (“Teague”), a federal prisoner, filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody on August 25, 2016. On October 7, 2016, defendant-movant United States of America filed its response. On October 20, 2016, Teague filed his Motion Objecting to the Government's Response to Movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

         On April 1, 2014, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging Teague with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On May 12, 2014, Teague pled guilty to the indictment. On August 27, 2014, Teague was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment. Teague did not appeal his conviction or sentence.

         Teague asserts two grounds in support of his § 2255 motion: (1) Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), precludes the use of his two prior state convictions for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute to enhance his base offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(2), and (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise ground number 1 at sentencing. The government asserts, in part, that Teague's § 2255 motion is untimely because it was filed more than one year from the date his conviction became final and none of the enumerated exceptions outlined in § 2255 apply. Section 2255 provides, in pertinent part:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(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). “If the defendant does not file an appeal, the criminal conviction becomes final upon the expiration of the time in which to take a direct criminal appeal.” United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2006).

         Since Teague did not file a direct criminal appeal in this case, Teague's judgment of conviction became final on September 10, 2014. Therefore, § 2255's one-year statute of limitations expired on September 10, 2015. Teague filed his § 2255 motion almost one year after the one-year statute of limitations expired.

         In his motion, Teague asserts that his § 2255 motion is timely under subsection (f)(4).

         Specifically, Teague asserts:

(A) Under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(4) Movant discovered through the exercise of due diligence by reading Mathis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 894 (6-23-16) in its entirety from 6-29-2016 to 7-3-2016 that was sent from a company called Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Report to the A-1-Unit computers via email at U.S.P. Leavenworth, KS on ...

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.