MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion appears to be time-barred, and the Court will order movant to show cause why the motion should not be summarily dismissed.

On November 30, 2010, movant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. On March 1, 2011, the Court sentenced movant to 92 months' imprisonment.1 Movant did not appeal.

Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts provides that a district court may summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion if it plainly appears that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f):

A district court may consider, on its own initiative, whether a habeas action is barred by the statute of limitations. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). However, before dismissing a habeas action as time-barred, the court must provide notice to the movant. Id.

A review of the instant motion indicates that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) and is subject to summary dismissal. An unappealed criminal judgment becomes final for purposes of calculating the time limit for filing a motion under § 2255 when the time for filing a direct appeal expires. Moshier v. United States, 402 F.3d 116, 118 (2nd Cir. 2005). In this case, the judgment became final fourteen days after the judgment was entered on March 1, 2011. Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b)(1). As a result, the one-year period of limitations under § 2255 expired on March 15, 2011. The instant motion was placed in the prison mail system by movant on September 15, 2015. Therefore, it appears to be time-barred.

Despite the untimeliness of his motion, movant appears to be asserting that the statute of limitations does not apply to him because he is not "attacking his conviction or sentence." Rather, he asserts that he is claiming his rights under the 2014 Drug Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, also known as "drugs minus two amendments," or Amendment 782.

The Court notes that the proper mechanism for bringing a motion for a reduction in one's sentence is through a motion filed in a movant's criminal case, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, in this case, the procedural posture of movant's request does not matter, because unfortunately, movant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under the 2014 Drug Amendments because his guideline range was determined based on his career offender status.

In other words, movant was sentenced under Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. As such, movant does not qualify as a "defendant . . . serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual. . . ." Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10(a)(1).

Despite the aforementioned, the Court will provide movant an opportunity to respond to both the untimeliness of his motion to vacate, as well as his argument for a reduction in his sentence, pursuant to the "drugs minus two" amendment. Movant shall have twenty-one days to file his response.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant shall show cause, in writing and no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why the instant § 2255 motion should not be dismissed as time-barred. If movant wishes to do so, he may also address his assertions regarding his motion for reduction in his sentence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if movant fails to comply with this Order, his § 2255 motion will be dismissed without further proceedings.