United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
TALTON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case involves a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) filed by
Hussein Smith Chery. The Government filed a response in
opposition to the section 2255 motion (Doc. 8). Petitioner
was provided an opportunity to file a reply to the response
but did not do so.
alleges one ground for relief, counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to explain the deportation consequences
of pleading guilty. For the following reasons, the Court
concludes that the motion is untimely and must be dismissed.
was charged by indictment with mail fraud (Counts One through
Ten), presenting false and fraudulent claims to the United
States Department of the Treasury (Counts Eleven through
Sixteen), theft of government property (Count Seventeen), and
access device fraud (Count Eighteen). (Criminal Case No.
6:13-cr-120-Orl-37TBS, Doc. 15). Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to Counts
Seven, Eight, and Eighteen. (Id. at Doc. 32).
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith filed a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the plea be accepted and
that Petitioner be adjudicated guilty of Counts Seven, Eight,
and Eighteen. (Id. at Doc. 36). The Court accepted
the plea and adjudicated Petitioner guilty of Counts Seven,
Eight, and Eighteen. (Id. at Doc. 39). On September
12, 2013, this Court entered Judgment, sentencing Petitioner
to concurrent 24-month terms of imprisonment to be followed
by a three-year term of supervised release. (Id. at
Doc. 47). The Government dismissed the remaining counts.
(Id.). Petitioner did not appeal.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the time for filing a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence is restricted, as
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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
exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
the time limitation set forth in ' 2255(f)(1), Petitioner
had one year from the date his conviction became final to
file a ' 2255 motion. Petitioner's Judgment was
entered on September 12, 2013, and he did not file a direct
appeal. Therefore, his conviction became final on September
26, 2013, when the time for filing an appeal expired. See
Mederos v. United States, 218 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.
2000) (a conviction which is not appealed becomes final when
the time allowed for filing an appeal expires); see
also Fed. R. App. P. 4(b); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a). Thus,
Petitioner had through September 27, 2014, to timely file his
' 2255 motion under § 2255(f)(1). However, the
instant proceeding was not filed until July 15, 2016, under
the mailbox rule. Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d