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.

Wright v. United States

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 27, 2017

MARKETA WRIGHT, Movant/Defendant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Plaintiff. Civ. Act. Nos. 13-2059-LPS, 13-2060-LPS

          Matketa Wright, Pro se Movant.

          Lesley F. Wolf, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Marketa Wright ("Movant") filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (D.I. 101 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 9 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) The United States Government ("Government") filed an Answer in Opposition. (D.I. 110 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 15 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny Movant's § 2255 Motion as time-barred by the one-year limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) without holding an evidentiary hearing.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On June 5, 2012, Movant pled guilty to: (1) four counts of the Indictment in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-LPS, charging her with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, social security fraud, and aggravated identity theft; and (2) three counts of the Felony Information in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS, charging her with conspiracy to file fraudulent tax returns, identity theft, and misuse of a social security number. (D.I. 67 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 2 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) On September 13, 2012, the Court sentenced Movant to a total of fifty-four months of imprisonment, twenty-four of which were mandatory for Movant's conviction for aggravated identity theft. The judgment was entered on September 18, 2012. (D.I. 86 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 7 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) Movant did not appeal.

         Movant filed the instant § 2255 Motion in December, 2013. (D.I. 101 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 9 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) The sole ground in the Motion asserts that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the guideline enhancement for fifty or more victims. The Government filed an Answer in Opposition to Movant's § 2255 Motion, arguing that the Motion should be dismissed as time-barred. (D.I. 100 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 15 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS) Movant also filed a Motion to Consolidate her § 2255 proceeding with her co-defendant husband's § 2255 proceeding. (D.I. 94 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS; D.I. 8 in Crim. Act. No. 12-33-LPS)

         III. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

         In her Motion to Consolidate, Movant seeks to consolidate her § 2255 proceeding with her co-defendant husband Diwann Mathis' ("Mathis") § 2255 proceeding (D.I. 99 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-1-LPS) because she and Mathis are seeking to vacate their judgments in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-LPS on the same ground and they are seeking identical relief (D.I. 94 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS). After reviewing Movant's § 2255 Motion, Mathis' § 2255 Motion, and the Government's Answer in Opposition, the Court concludes that consolidating Movant's § 2255 Motion with Mathis' § 2255 Motion would be inappropriate. As explained below, the Court concludes that Movant's § 2255 Motion is time-barred. In contrast, however, according to the Government's Response in Mathis' § 2255 proceeding, Mathis' § 2255 Motion is not time-barred and must be reviewed on the merits. (D.I. 112 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-1-LPS) Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Consolidate.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a one-year period of limitation on the filing of a § 2255 motion by federal prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The one-year limitations period begins to 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 ...

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.