Gabriel-Martinez v. U.S., 8:18-cv-2063-T-26TGW. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180822a37
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of Plaintiff's underlying criminal case, case number 8:06-cr-280, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Dkt. 1) filed on August 13, 2018, under the mailbox rule, is denied. As the record of the underlying criminal case indisputably reflects, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Plaintiff's judgment of conviction on August
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of Plaintiff's underlying criminal case, case number 8:06-cr-280, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Dkt. 1) filed on August 13, 2018, under the mailbox rule, is denied. As the record of the underlying criminal case indisputably reflects, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Plaintiff's judgment of conviction on August ..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of Plaintiff's underlying criminal case, case number 8:06-cr-280, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 1) filed on August 13, 2018, under the mailbox rule, is denied. As the record of the underlying criminal case indisputably reflects, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Plaintiff's judgment of conviction on August 4, 2008.1 Thus, he had ninety (90) days from that day to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court which the record also indisputably reflects he did not do. Given that circumstance, his judgment of conviction became final ninety (90) days after the affirmance of his judgment of conviction by the Eleventh Circuit which is a little less than ten (10) years ago. See Close v. United States, 336 F.3d 1283, 1284-85 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing and quoting Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 1075, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003)). Consequently, because more than one year has elapsed since Plaintiff's judgment of conviction became final, his motion to vacate is time-barred under the provisions of § 2255(f)(1).
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See docket 220; see also United States v. Gabriel-Martinez, 321 F. App'x 798 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2008).
Source: Leagle
