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.

United States v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 10, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
WILLIAM I. WILSON, Defendant/Movant Criminal Action No. 08-cr-00263-KHV

For USA, Plaintiff (1:08-cr-00263-KHV): James R. Allison, Kenneth Mark Harmon, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Michele M. Kelley, Denver, CO.

William I. Wilson, Petitioner (1:14-cv-03104-KHV), Pro se, LITTLETON, CO.

For USA, Respondent (1:14-cv-03104-KHV): James R. Allison, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office-Denver, Denver, CO.

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, United States District Judge.

Movant, William I. Wilson, has filed, pro se, a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 464), challenging the validity of his convictions and sentence in this criminal action. The Court construes Movant's filing liberally because he is not represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court will not act as a pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons discussed below, the § 2255 motion will be dismissed as untimely.

I. Procedural History

Following a jury trial in November 2010, Movant was convicted of numerous counts of bank fraud, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1344 and 2. The Court sentenced Movant to an aggregate prison term of 120 months. (ECF No. 365). An Amended Judgment was entered on May 5, 2011. (Id.). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in United States v. William I. Wilson, 503 F.App'x 598 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). (ECF No. 453). Movant filed a petition for certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 7, 2013. (ECF No. 459).

On November 13, 2013, Movant filed a " Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Habeas Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255" (ECF No. 460). In the motion, Movant asked the Court to extend the one-year limitation period for filing a motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Id.). The Court denied the motion on November 21, 2013 for lack of jurisdiction because the question of whether equitable tolling was warranted for a future § 2255 motion was not ripe. (ECF No. 461). The Court further determined that it lacked authority to extend the statutory filing deadline. (Id.).

On November 18, 2104, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which he purports to assert ten claims for relief. On December 16, 2014, the Court entered an Order directing Movant to show cause why the § 2255 Motion should not be dismissed as time-barred.[1] (ECF No. 468). Movant filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on December 22, 2014. (ECF No. 470).

II. Analysis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), a one-year limitation period applies to motions to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence.

The limitation period shall run from the latest of-

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented ...

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.