Byrd v. USA-2255, 8:17-cv-01679

Petitioner Eric Leroy Byrd was convicted in 2012 of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base and sentenced as a career offender to 132 months' imprisonment; no direct appeal was filed.
Byrd filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on June 15, 2017, claiming his prior convictions no longer supported the career-offender enhancement in light of Mathis v. United States (decided June 23, 2016).
The Government moved to dismiss the § 2255 motion as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) because Byrd’s judgment became final on March 19, 2012 and he did not file within one year.
Byrd argued his filing was timely under § 2255(f)(3) (one year from a newly recognized Supreme Court right) based on Mathis, and alternatively under § 2255(f)(4) (one year from discovery of supporting facts).
The court found Mathis did not announce a new right for § 2255(f)(3) purposes and that a Supreme Court decision is not a “new fact” triggering § 2255(f)(4); accordingly the motion was untimely and dismissed.
The court also denied a Certificate of Appealability, concluding Byrd failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Byrd)	Defendant's Argument (United States)	Held
Whether Byrd’s § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255(f)(3) based on Mathis	Mathis recognized a new right that invalidates his career-offender predicates, so the § 2255 clock runs from Mathis (2016)	Mathis did not announce a new, retroactive right for collateral review; Byrd’s judgment became final in 2012 and the one-year period expired in 2013	Denied — Mathis did not create a new rule for § 2255(f)(3); motion is untimely
Whether § 2255(f)(4) tolls the limitations period because the facts supporting Byrd’s claim were discovered after conviction	Mathis’s decision supplied the factual/legal basis for his collateral attack; therefore the § 2255 clock should run from Mathis	A legal decision is not a “new fact” under § 2255(f)(4); Whiteside forecloses treating a legal ruling as newly discovered facts	Denied — § 2255(f)(4) inapplicable; Mathis is a legal decision, not new facts
Whether equitable tolling saves Byrd’s untimely filing	(Byrd did not assert equitable tolling)	No equitable tolling shown; petitioner did not argue extraordinary circumstances	N/A — petitioner did not invoke equitable tolling
Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue	Byrd requested relief on constitutional grounds tied to Mathis	Government opposed; court assessed whether reasonable jurists could debate the ruling	Denied — Byrd failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified application of the modified categorical approach for predicate offenses)
United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (statute of limitations for § 2255 begins when judgment becomes final if no appeal taken)
United States v. Mathur, 685 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1982) (standards for applying § 2255(f)(3))
Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (a subsequent legal decision is not a "new fact" under § 2255(f)(4))
Sosa v. United States, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances beyond petitioner’s control)
Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standards for equitable tolling)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (diligence required for equitable tolling)
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) (standard for granting a COA)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for COA evaluation)