United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ARTHUR D. SEALE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Arthur D. Seale is proceeding pro se with a motion to
correct, vacate, or set aside his federal sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner pled guilty to a seven-count indictment for his
role in the 1992 kidnapping and attempted ransom of Sidney J.
Reso, president of an Exxon subsidiary. The plot ultimately
resulted in Mr. Reso's death. Petitioner was sentenced to
95 years in prison with a five-year term of supervised
release, and ordered to pay a $1.75 million fine and $350 in
special assessments. See United States v. Seale, No.
92-cr-0372 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 1992).
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
and remanded for recalculation of the fine. United States
v. Seale, 20 F.3d 1279, 1281-82 (3d Cir. 1994). The
Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., D.N.J., resentenced
Petitioner to a $75, 000 fine on July 18, 1994.
twenty years later, Petitioner filed this motion under §
2255 raising three grounds for relief: (1) his sentence is
unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's recent
decisions in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204
(2018); (2) his sentence is unconstitutional in light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and,
(3) his federal sentence should be concurrent to his state
Court must now review the motion under the Rules Governing
§ 2255 Proceedings. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se,
his petition is held to less stringent standards than those
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Rainey v. Varner,
603 F.3d 189, 198 (3d Cir. 2010) ("It is the policy of
the courts to give a liberal construction to pro se habeas
petitions.") (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); United States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334
(3d Cir. 2007) ("[W]e construe pro se pleadings
liberally.") (citing Raines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972)).
Nevertheless, "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion,
any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings
that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge
must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the
moving party." 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 4(b).
Presuming this Court has jurisdiction,  the motion is
barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
AEDPA's limitation period runs from the latest of four
(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