United States v. Butler
3:05-cr-00070
W.D. Ky.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Movant Hannibal Butler filed a pro se § 2255 motion for relief from sentence, pending preliminary review under Rule 4.
- Butler pleaded guilty in 2006 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base; sentenced to 262 months.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction on January 22, 2007; Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 29, 2007.
- Butler filed the § 2255 motion on December 16, 2016, well after the one-year statute of limitations.
- Butler challenges his career-offender classification under Guidelines based on Mathis v. United States (2016).
- The court determines Mathis is not retroactive to collateral review and the motion is time-barred absent equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Butler's § 2255 motion timely under § 2255(f)? | Final date June 29, 2007; deadline June 29, 2008; filed 2016 is untimely. | Mathis retroactivity does not affect timeliness; no tolling shown. | Time-barred; motion subject to dismissal. |
| Did Mathis announce a retroactive rule affecting § 2255 timing? | Mathis changes predicate offenses for career offender status. | Mathis does not establish a retroactive new rule for collateral review. | Mathis not retroactive; does not save timeliness. |
| Is equitable tolling available to excuse the late filing? | Equitable tolling may apply under extraordinary circumstances. | No compelling circumstances shown; diligent pursuit not demonstrated. | Equitable tolling not warranted; time-bar remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (new rules not retroactive absent Supreme Court determination)
- In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2016) (Mathis retroactivity not presumed for collateral review)
- Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2002) (mailbox rule for filing)
- Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (doctrine of equitable tolling; discovery of impediment factors)
- Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 2003) (tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (statute of limitations for § 2255 review not jurisdictional)
- McClendon v. Sherman, 329 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden on movant to show entitlement to tolling)