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.

Williams v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

October 23, 2019

SAUL HICKS WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          GROH JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ROBERT W. TRUMBLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On September 3, 2019, pro se petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 52.[1] On September 5, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order [ECF No. 56] advising Petitioner that his § 2255 Motion would be dismissed as untimely within fourteen days unless he could demonstrate that the statute of limitations could be equitably tolled. Petitioner has failed to respond to this Order.[2]

         II. FACTS

         A. Conviction and Sentence

         On July 6, 2016, Petitioner was indicted in a one count indictment charging him with failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2250(a). ECF No. 1. On October 11, 2016, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Petitioner plead guilty to this charge. ECF No. 40, 42.

         On January 9, 2017, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a term of 36 months of imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release for life. ECF No. 47. The Court entered this judgment on January 11, 2017. ECF No. 48.

         B. Appeal

         Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal. ECF No. 52 at 1.

         C. Instant § 2255 Motion to Vacate

         Petitioner's Motion sets forth one issue. Petitioner contends that in United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369 (2019), the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) is unconstitutional. ECF No. 52 at 4. Petitioner further asserts that he was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) and now, due to the holding in Haymond, the Court can resentence him to far less time.

         The undersigned must first review this motion to decide if it is timely filed.[3]

         D. Re ...


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.