United States v. David Edward Adams
7:06-cr-00022
W.D. Va.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Petitioner David Edward Adams was convicted in December 2006 of conspiracy to distribute >500 grams of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and a § 924(c) firearm offense and sentenced to 248 months.
- Adams did not file a direct appeal; his conviction became final in January 2007 when the appeal period expired.
- Adams filed a pro se § 2255 motion no earlier than May 2, 2017, seeking resentencing to time served (he had served ~135 months) based on changed law under Dean and Mathis.
- He contends the one-year § 2255 limitations period is triggered by Supreme Court decisions (Dean v. United States; Mathis v. United States).
- The government argues those decisions do not newly recognize retroactive rights for collateral review and that Adams’ motion is untimely; he also did not pursue relief earlier or show extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.
- The court screened the motion under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings and dismissed it as time-barred; a certificate of appealability was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 motion | Adams: § 2255 one-year period is triggered by Dean or Mathis, so his 2017 filing is timely | Court/Government: Conviction final in 2007; Dean/Mathis do not create a retroactive collateral rule here | Motion is untimely under § 2255(1); Dean/Mathis do not trigger § 2255(3) for collateral retroactivity |
| Applicability of Dean/Mathis on collateral review | Adams: Those decisions changed sentencing law affecting his sentence | Government: Neither decision announced a new rule made retroactive to cases on collateral review | Court: Dean and Mathis do not apply retroactively under Teague; they do not restart § 2255 limitations |
| Equitable tolling of the limitations period | Adams: Counsel’s failure to appeal and his pro se status justify tolling | Government: No extraordinary external circumstances; counsel error not shown to excuse delay | Court: Equitable tolling denied; petitioner did not show diligence or extraordinary circumstance |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Adams: Implicitly seeks ability to appeal | Government: No substantial constitutional claim shown | Court: COA denied under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Slack v. McDaniel |
Key Cases Cited
- Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (procedural default and finality presumption)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (conviction final when direct review exhausted)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (retroactivity framework for new rules on collateral review)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir.: equitable tolling narrow application)
- Sosa v. United States, 364 F.3d 507 (pro se status/ignorance of law insufficient for tolling)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (interpretation of state offense elements vs. generic offenses)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (consideration of § 924(c) mandatory minimums in sentencing)