United States v. Kimbrough
1:09-cr-00331
W.D. Mich.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Tramaine B. Cooley pleaded guilty in 2010 to armed bank robbery (Count 2) and brandishing a firearm during a robbery (Count 3).
- Court sentenced him to 57 months on Count 2 and 84 months on Count 3 on December 14, 2010; he did not appeal.
- On May 4, 2017, Cooley filed a § 2255 motion seeking resentencing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dean v. United States (Apr. 3, 2017).
- The government moved to dismiss the § 2255 petition as time-barred under the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
- The district court found Cooley’s judgment became final on December 28, 2010, and his 2017 filing was untimely absent a showing that Dean announced a new, retroactive right or that equitable tolling applies.
- The court dismissed the § 2255 motion with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and directed entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Cooley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 2255(f)(1) | Petition is untimely because judgment became final in 2010 | Cooley argues his claim is timely due to Dean decision | Court: Petition untimely; judgment final Dec. 28, 2010; 2017 filing outside one-year window |
| Applicability of § 2255(f)(3) (new right) | Dean does not announce a new retroactive right that restarts limitations period | Dean requires resentencing consideration and thus triggers § 2255(f)(3) | Court: Cooley failed to show Dean created a new right made retroactive; f(3) does not apply |
| Retroactivity of Dean on collateral review | N/A (government asserts Dean not retroactive) | Dean should apply to prior sentences, entitling resentencing | Court: Other courts indicate Dean not shown to be retroactive; Cooley did not meet standard to apply Dean retroactively |
| Equitable tolling | No basis shown for tolling | Requests tolling to overcome timeliness bar | Court: Cooley did not assert or demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2005) (movant must show constitutional error with substantial and injurious effect to prevail on § 2255)
- Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard for § 2255 prejudice inquiry)
- Sanchez-Castellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2004) (judgment becomes final after the appeal period expires when no appeal filed)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (equitable tolling standards)
- Jones v. United States, 689 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (equitable tolling principles in § 2255 context)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Gillis v. United States, 729 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2013) (separate judgment required in habeas proceedings)