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.

Boyd v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 21, 2018

JONATHAN D. BOYD, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent.

          Jonathan D. Boyd, 63867-050 F.C.I. McKean Petitioner Pro se

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner Jonathan D. Boyd (“Petitioner”), a prisoner presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at McKean in Bradford, Pennsylvania, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the “§ 2255 Motion”). ECF No. 1. The Court previously dismissed the § 2255 Motion as untimely. ECF Nos. 4 (opinion) and 5 (order). Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Consideration of Statutory or Equitable Tolling Issues (the “Equitable Tolling Motion”). ECF No. 6. For the reasons that follow, the Equitable Tolling Motion will be denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner pled guilty to one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) on February 28, 2012. No. 1:11-cr-686, ECF No. 17, Plea Agreement. The Court conducted Petitioner's sentencing hearing on December 19, 2012 and sentenced Petitioner to a term of 132 months of imprisonment. No. 1:11-cr-686, ECF No. 22, Sentencing Hr'g Tr.; ECF No. 19, Judgement of Conviction.

         Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which appeal was denied on October 3, 2013. ECF No. 3, Am. Pet. Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Id., Am. Pet. at 3.

         Over a year after his conviction became final, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on November 17, 2015. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed an amended motion on January 5, 2016 in order to conform to the Court's Local Rules. ECF No. 3. In the § 2255 Motion, Petitioner's sole ground for relief is that the Government breached the plea agreement by arguing in favor of categorizing Petitioner as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. ECF No. 3, § 2255 Motion at 5. In the § 2255 Motion, Petitioner states that his claim is timely “since the facts supporting his claim were not discovered until he received the necessary information that the Government breached the Plea Agreement.” Id. at 13. Petitioner went on to explain that

the facts supporting his claim were not discovered until he received the necessary information from his former attorney which he sought on numerous occasions. Petitioner requested information from the above party concerning his plea agreement. Finally, after many attempts, Petitioner received the necessary information informing him that the Government breached the plea agreement.

Id. at 17.

         In its Opinion entered May 17, 2016, the Court found that Petitioner's conviction became final on January 1, 2014, and that the applicable statute of limitations for bringing a § 2255 challenge expired on January 1, 2015. ECF No. 4 at 4-5. The Court declined to apply the statute of limitations provided in § 2255(f)(4), which provides one year in which to bring a claim after the discovery of facts upon which the claim relies, because the Court noted that the Petitioner was in possession of the facts upon which his claim relies as of the date of his sentencing hearing. Id. at 6-7. The Court noted that Petitioner offered no explanation for his delay in filing his § 2255 Motion that would permit equitable tolling. The Court thus dismissed the Motion without prejudice and explained that Petitioner would file a motion to re-open the action for consideration of tolling issues. Id. at 10.

         Petitioner thereafter filed the Equitable Tolling Motion. ECF No. 6. In it, Petitioner first argues that his § 2255 Motion should be considered timely under § 2255(f)(4), which provides for a one-year limitations period starting from the date on which the operative facts supporting the claim were discovered. ECF No. 6 at 3. In addition, Petitioner argues that the Court should “focus also on other aspects of his claims that might entitle him to relief” such as the fact that his claim was “not discovered until he received the necessary information from his former counsel which he sought on numerous occasions.” Id. at 3. Petitioner notes that he raised these arguments in his original motion. Id.

         II. DISCUSSION

         As the Court detailed in its Opinion of May 17, 2016, Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), because it was filed over a year after his conviction became final, and under § 2255(f)(4), because Petitioner knew of the facts on which his claim is based at his sentencing hearing. ECF No. 4, Op. at 5-6. In his Equitable Tolling Motion, Petitioner provides no additional facts that were discovered after the sentencing hearing and on which a timely claim within the limitations period provided under § 2255(f)(4) could be found. Petitioner's argument as to the limitations period in his Equitable Tolling Motion is substantively identical to the argument he made previously and that the Court addressed in its prior Opinion. See ECF No. 4 at 5-6 (quoting the Amended Petition). Because Petitioner has failed to present facts substantiating a discovery that occurred subsequent to the sentencing hearing, the Motion will be denied as to timeliness under the statute of limitations.

         In its prior Opinion, the Court advised Petitioner that he had included no facts upon which the Court could consider equitable tolling but granted him an opportunity to file the instant motion to address equitable tolling. See ECF No. 4 at 7-11. A litigant who seeks equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) ...


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.