Taylor v. United States
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-02233
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Taylor v. United States, Judge Karas ordered Tremel Taylor to explain why his sentence challenge should not be denied as late.
Tremel Taylor is affected because he must file a declaration within 60 days explaining why his § 2255 motion should not be denied as time-barred. If he does not comply, the motion will be denied as time-barred. The United States is affected because it is not required to answer unless the court later orders service of the motion.
What happened
In Taylor v. United States, Tremel Taylor, who was representing himself, challenged his federal sentence under a law that allows prisoners to seek relief from unlawful sentences. He had pleaded guilty to drug-distribution and firearm-possession charges and received concurrent 78-month sentences.
The court said the challenge appeared to be filed after the usual one-year deadline. It gave Taylor 60 days to explain whether he had been pursuing his rights diligently and whether an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing. The court did not decide the legality of his sentence in this order.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas said that if Taylor does not respond, the motion will be denied as time-barred; if he responds, the court will review the declaration. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-02233
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Tremel Taylor, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his sentence. The motion relates to his criminal case, No. 7:16-CR-0390-1. Taylor pleaded guilty on June 1, 2017, to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute crack and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and possessing a firearm as a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
The court entered judgment on April 19, 2018. Taylor received 78 months in prison on each count, with the terms running concurrently. He also received concurrent terms of supervised release: five years on the drug count and three years on the firearm count. Taylor did not appeal.
Timeliness issue
A § 2255 motion generally must be filed within one year from the latest of several dates specified by statute. One of those dates is when the criminal judgment becomes final. The court determined that Taylor’s judgment became final on or about May 4, 2018, when the 14-day period for filing a notice of appeal expired.
Taylor gave the motion to prison officials for mailing on March 4, 2020. The court stated that the motion therefore appeared to have been filed more than one year after the judgment became final. The court noted that the filing deadline may be extended in appropriate circumstances if a petitioner has pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Order
The court directed Taylor to file, within 60 days of the order, a declaration showing why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. If he files a declaration within the allowed period, the court will review it and, if appropriate, direct that the motion be served on the United States. If he does not comply, the motion will be denied as time-barred. The court did not require the United States to answer at that time.
The court also stated that Taylor had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal.
Disposition and classification
The court did not yet deny the § 2255 motion. It issued an order requiring Taylor to show cause why the motion should not be denied as untimely. This is a procedural order because the court addressed a filing deadline and did not reach the merits of Taylor’s challenge to his sentence.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.