United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MILES-LaGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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).
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.
motion, Teague asserts that his § 2255 motion is timely
under subsection (f)(4).
(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 ...