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. Young

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

August 4, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
PATRICK YOUNG, Defendant/Petitioner.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Patrick Young on May 29, 2019 (“§ 2255 Motion” or “Motion”). Doc #: 42. Young contends that his conviction for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). On June 27, 2019, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that Young's § 2255 Motion is time-barred (“Motion to Dismiss”). Doc #: 43.

         The Court has reviewed the § 2255 Motion and the Government's responsive Motion to Dismiss. Because the Government's Motion to Dismiss was filed on June 27, 2019, Patrick Young had until July 30, 2019 to file a response brief. It is now September 4, 2019, and Young has failed to file an opposition brief or request an extension of time to file one. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, Doc #: 43, and DISMISSES the § 2255 Motion, Doc #: 42.

         I.

         On January 12, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Patrick Young with Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2 (Count 1), Hobbs Act Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and (2) (Counts 2, 3, 5 and 7), and Brandishing a Firearm During a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2 (Counts 4 and 6). Doc #: 1. Young pled guilty to all counts pursuant to a plea agreement. Doc #: 17. In the Plea Agreement, Young waived his constitutional rights with the following exceptions. Doc #: 18. He reserved the right to appeal any punishment in excess of the statutory maximum, or any sentence to the extent it exceeded the maximum of the applicable range under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines in accordance with the stipulation contained in the Plea Agreement. Id. The Plea Agreement did not bar Young from seeking an appeal or collateral attack with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.

         On August 31, 2016, Young was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment on all counts to run concurrently, with credit for time served. On May 4, 2017, the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. The deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired on August 2, 2017 at which time his judgment and conviction became final.

         Ordinarily, Young's timely petition would have been due by August 2, 2018, one year after his judgment and conviction became final. But on May 29, 2019, Young filed the instant § 2255 Motion arguing that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence is no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). Dimaya recognized a new rule of law that applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, on April 17, 2018.

         II.

         The applicable limitations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), provides:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(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[.]

Id. As Dimaya was issued on April 17, 2018, the one-year period for Young to file his § 2255 Motion expired on April 17, 2019.

         In the Certificate of Service, Young states that he mailed his § 2255 Motion on February 25, 2019, and he contends he was in transit when he ...


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.