PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to reduce, modify, or vacate her sentence. The Government argues that the motion is time-barred. For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees and will therefore deny the motion. The Court also declines to issue Defendant a certificate of appealability.
Defendant was convicted of numerous fraud-related offenses following a jury trial. The Court sentenced Defendant to 210 months of imprisonment. On July 6, 2009, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. See United States v. Moses, 337 F. App'x 443 (6th Cir. 2009). The time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired 90 days later, on October 4, 2009. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(1). Defendant did not file a writ of certiorari; instead, on December 15, 2014, she filed the present motion to reduce, modify, or vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Government filed a response to Defendant's § 2255 motion on January 5, 2015. On January 15, 2015, Defendant sent a letter to the Court stating that the § 2255 motion that she filed on December 15, 2014 was "very preliminary and was not to be construed as a [motion under §] 2255." ECF No. 512 Page ID 7609. On January 27, 2015, the Court sent Defendant a response letter, allowing Defendant to amend or supplement her December 15, 2014 motion by March 1, 2015. Defendant then filed several papers supplementing her original filing. See ECF Nos. 513, 514. The matter is now fully briefed and ready for decision.
A one year limitations period governs the filing of motions under § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The one year period begins running from the latest of four possible dates:
Id. Here, the statute began running on October 4, 2009, the date on which the 90-day time period of filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court expired. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525 123 S.Ct. 1072, 1075 (2003) ("For the purpose of starting the clock on § 2255's one-year limitation period, . . . a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.").
"The one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 petition is subject to equitable tolling." Johnson v. United States, 457 F. App'x 462, 469 (6th Cir. 2012). Defendant argues that equitable tolling should apply because she is actually innocent of her crimes.
The Court notes that Defendant lists 18 U.S.C. § 3582 as a basis for her § 2255 motion, but fails in her motion papers to explain that reference or develop any arguments that she may wish to assert under § 3582. Defendant does state, however, that she is "in very poor health" and that her health "has continued to deteriorate." ECF No. 512 Page ID 7609-10. She also includes a list of medical conditions from which she is suffering. ECF No. 507 Page ID 7601. The Court construes these statements as a request for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). That provision allows federal courts to reduce a term of imprisonment "upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, . . . if [the court] finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." Because no motion has been filed on Defendant's behalf by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the Court lacks authority to grant Defendant relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See Engle v. United States, 26 F. App'x 394, 397 (6th Cir. 2001) ("A district court may not modify a defendant's federal sentence based on the defendant's ill health, except upon a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.").
Finally, the Court must assess whether to grant Defendant a certificate of appealability ("COA"). Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 11.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). The Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find its resolution of the statute of limitations issue debatable. The Court therefore declines to issue Defendant a COA.
For the reasons stated above, (1) Defendant's motion under § 2255 is
ECF No. 514 Page ID 7629 (emphasis in original).