United States v. Salazar

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          PHILIP A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Movant, Anthony Michael Salazar, has filed pro se a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (§ 2255 Motion) [Docket No. 42].^[1]The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Salazar is representing himself. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Movant will be ordered to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On March 16, 2015, Movant was placed on supervision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Docket No. 22. Following a conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), Movant was sentenced to a 12-month term of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Docket No. 1-2. Supervision commenced in the District of Utah on July 22, 2015 and was transferred to the District of Colorado on January 15, 2016. Docket No. I. On September 20, 2016, a United States Probation Officer filed a Superseding Petition Due to Violations of Supervision (“Petition”). Docket No. 22. The Petition alleged five violations, including, inter alia, Violation of Law, a Grade B violation of supervised release under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 7. Id. at 3. The Violation of Law was “Certain Activities Relating to Material Constituting or Containing Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2252A.” Id. Movant admitted to the alleged Violation of Law. Docket Nos. 38, 40. On March 6, 2017, he was sentenced to a 60-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Docket No. 40. Movant did not file a direct appeal.

         Movant filed his § 2255 Motion on January 15, 2019. Docket No. 42. In the Motion, he asks the Court to vacate the period of supervised release on the basis that the Court had no jurisdiction to impose it. Id. at 3. Specifically, Movant asserts that “[t]he revocation of [his] supervised release was a continuation of the original criminal action, not a separate proceeding” and, therefore, “the court could not impose another five years supervised release after imposing a five year sentence after revoking his supervised release.” Id. at 9. In the alternative, Movant argues that his conditions of supervised release must be modified. Id. at 10-23.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Timeliness

         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 B

(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 from making a motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the ...