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.

Brockenbaugh v. United States

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 30, 2019

RONALD BROCKENBAUGH, Movant/Defendant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Plaintiff.

          Ronald Brockenbaugh. Pro se Movant.

          Robert Kravetz, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         1. INTRODUCTION

         Ronald Brockenbaugh ("Movant") filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (D.I. 39) The United States ("Respondent") Sled an Answer in Opposition. (D.I. 47) 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 February 29, 2012, Movant pled guilty to a ten-count Information, which charged him with eight counts of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), one count of possessing and brandishing a firearm in interstate commerce in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). (D.I. 31 at 1-2; D.I. 44) The charges stemmed from Movant's armed crime spree in late-2010, when he robbed six commercial establishments in Delaware and two in Connecticut. (D.I. 47 at 1 n.1) The Court sentenced Movant on February 29, 2012 to a total of 180 months in prison. (D.I. 35) Movant's Plea Agreement contained an appellate waiver provision, and Movant did not appeal his convictions or sentences. (D.I. 31 at 5 ¶ 6)

         Movant filed the instant pro se § 2255 Motion in June 2016, asserting that: (1) his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Two) should be vacated because the underlying offense no longer qualifies as a violent felony after Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (D.I. 29 at 2-5, 11); and (2) the Court incorrectly calculated die advisory Sentencing Guidelines in relation to the Hobbs Act robbery convictions (Counts One, Two-Nine) and his criminal history (D.I. 39 at 2, 5-6). Respondent filed an Answer in Opposition to Movant's § 2255 Motion, arguing that the Motion should be dismissed as time-barred. (D.I. 47) Movant filed a Reply arguing that his Motion should be considered timely filed because he filed it within one year after the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which announced a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. (D.I. 49 at 1-2)

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Both Claims Are Time-Barred

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a one-year period of limitations 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 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 ...

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.