Hawkins v. United States, 8:17-cv-01281

Defendant Donielle Lavonte Hawkins pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 188 months (bottom of advisory Guidelines range).
Hawkins had two prior Florida drug convictions (2005 sale/delivery; 2006 possession with intent to sell), which produced career-offender/ACCA-type enhancements under the Guidelines calculation used at sentencing.
Hawkins filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion dated May 22, 2017, challenging the sentence as unlawful under Descamps and Mathis; the motion was filed roughly eight years after his judgment became final in 2008.
The government moved to dismiss as time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); the court screened the petition under Rule 4 and considered timeliness sua sponte.
Hawkins argued (1) Mathis/Descamps announced a new rule triggering § 2255(f)(3), and (2) that intervening circuit precedent or discovery triggered § 2255(f)(2) or (4); he also discussed alleged failure to appeal counsel conduct but did not claim he instructed counsel to appeal.
The plea agreement contained a broad appeal/collateral-attack waiver; the court found the waiver valid and relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent holding counsel had no constitutional duty to consult about appeal where waiver and facts make an appeal irrational.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under § 2255(f)(1)	Motion filed 2017 is timely because of later-recognized law	Motion is untimely; judgment became final in 2008 so one-year expired in 2009	Denied: motion is time-barred under § 2255(f)(1)
Applicability of Mathis/Descamps under § 2255(f)(3)	Mathis/Descamps announced a new right that retroactively allows relief	Mathis/Descamps inapplicable to advisory Guidelines career-offender, and Mathis did not announce a new constitutional rule for § 2255(f)(3)	Denied: Beckles makes ACCA-style challenges inapplicable to advisory Guidelines; Mathis does not provide § 2255(f)(3) relief
Reliance on intervening precedent to trigger § 2255(f)(2) or (4)	Overruled Eleventh Circuit precedent created an impediment or a new fact justifying later filing	Circuit precedent is not a governmental impediment and a legal decision is not a ‘‘fact’’ under § 2255(f)(4)	Denied: precedent reversal is not an ‘‘impediment’’ under (f)(2) nor a ‘‘fact’’ under (f)(4)
Ineffective assistance re: failure to appeal	Counsel failed to appeal or consult about appeal	Plea waiver and sentence at bottom of Guidelines made appeal irrational; Hawkins didn’t direct counsel to appeal	Denied: no duty to consult; waiver and circumstances make appeal frivolous; claim fails

Wright v. United States, 624 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1980) (permitting summary dismissal of § 2255 where record plainly shows no relief)
Hart v. United States, 565 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1978) (Rule 4(b) summary dismissal authority)
United States v. Deal, 678 F.2d 1062 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Wright and Hart on summary dismissal)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (district courts may consider timeliness sua sponte)
Jackson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 292 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002) (discretion to question timeliness sua sponte)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits modified categorical approach for indivisible offenses)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statutory-elements inquiry for predicate convictions)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines sentences are not subject to vagueness challenges under ACCA)
In re Orestes Hernandez, 857 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2017) (Mathis did not announce a new constitutional rule for § 2255 purposes)
Otero v. United States, 499 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2007) (no constitutional duty to consult about appeal where plea waiver makes appeal irrational)
Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2001) (reversed circuit precedent is not cause excusing procedural defaults)