Filed: Dec. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2017
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. DOWDELL , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant Jasmine Lynch's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. 72). In 2016, Ms. Lynch pleaded guilty to Sex Trafficking of a Child in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)(1), which subjected her to a mandatory term of "imprisonment for not less than 10 years" to a maximum of life under 1591(b)(2). On September 14, 2016, she was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 mo
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. DOWDELL , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant Jasmine Lynch's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. 72). In 2016, Ms. Lynch pleaded guilty to Sex Trafficking of a Child in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)(1), which subjected her to a mandatory term of "imprisonment for not less than 10 years" to a maximum of life under 1591(b)(2). On September 14, 2016, she was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 mon..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. DOWDELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant Jasmine Lynch's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 72). In 2016, Ms. Lynch pleaded guilty to Sex Trafficking of a Child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), which subjected her to a mandatory term of "imprisonment for not less than 10 years" to a maximum of life under § 1591(b)(2). On September 14, 2016, she was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months' imprisonment, and Judgment was entered that same date. (Doc. 65). She did not file a direct appeal. The instant § 2255 motion was filed on November 21, 2017.
Section 2255 motions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). As applied to Ms. Lynch's assertions in her motion, the limitations period began to run on "the date on which the judgment of conviction bec[ame] final." Id., § 2255(f)(1). "If the defendant does not file an appeal, the criminal conviction becomes final upon the expiration of the time in which to take a direct criminal appeal." United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2006). The Court entered judgment on September 14, 2016. Ms. Lynch had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. Her conviction therefore became final on September 28, 2016, and she had until September 28, 2017 to file a § 2255 motion. She did not file her § 2255 motion until November, 2017, over a month after the § 2255 statute of limitations expired.1
Ms. Lynch has provided no facts or argument to indicate that a later date should apply or that circumstances exist to toll the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2), (3), (4); see also United States v. Valencia, 472 F.3d 761, 763 (10th Cir. 2006) (the limitations period begins to run when the movant's conviction became final unless the movant shows it should begin at a later time); United States v. Terrones-Lopez, 447 F. App'x 882, 884-85 (10th Cir. 2011). Specifically, Ms. Lynch did not provide any information in section 18 of her § 2255 motion, which states: "TIMELINESS OF MOTION: If your judgment of conviction became final over a year ago, you must explain why the one-year statute of limitations as contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not bar your motion." (Doc. 72 at 10-11 of 13). Her motion is untimely, and it is accordingly denied.
SO ORDERED.
