Pickett v. United States

Background

Dexter Pickett, appearing without a lawyer, pleaded guilty on August 14, 2012, to conspiring to distribute at least 28 grams of crack cocaine and to using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. The court sentenced him to 120 months in prison: 60 months for the narcotics charge and a mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearms charge. Judgment was entered on February 5, 2013.

Before the federal case, Pickett had been arrested and charged in New York state court with offenses involving possession of a handgun after a shooting. He received a three-and-one-half-year state sentence on January 17, 2013. After completing that sentence, he entered federal custody and began serving his federal sentence. The Bureau of Prisons later treated the federal sentence as consecutive to the state sentence and denied Pickett’s request for a retroactive designation making the sentences concurrent, meaning served at the same time.

Pickett filed several earlier challenges to the sentence calculation, including a challenge in the Western District of Pennsylvania, where he was imprisoned. That court found that the Bureau of Prisons had not abused its discretion. Pickett also asked this court to apply his state-custody time to his federal sentence or resentence him; this court denied that request in August 2017.

Petition and Arguments

On October 30, 2017, Pickett filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. He claimed that he believed during the guilty-plea process that his state and federal sentences would run concurrently. He argued that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the sentences might run consecutively.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that the petition was untimely. Section 2255 generally requires a motion to be filed within one year from the latest of specified events, including when the conviction becomes final or when the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court determined that Pickett’s conviction became final on February 19, 2013, and that the ordinary one-year filing period expired that day under the court’s analysis. The court further concluded that, even using the later date when the Bureau of Prisons denied Pickett’s administrative challenge—about April 7, 2015—the petition filed on October 30, 2017, was more than two years late. The court found no factual basis for extending the deadline on equitable grounds, noting Pickett’s earlier filings showed that he knew the sentences were being treated as consecutive and could pursue legal challenges.

Merits

The court also rejected Pickett’s claim on the merits, meaning after considering whether the claim itself had legal support. It found nothing in the record showing that the court, the government, or Pickett’s attorney promised that the sentences would run concurrently. The court also noted that the state sentence had not yet been imposed when the federal sentence was imposed, and that the plea agreement did not state that the federal sentence would be concurrent with a future state sentence.

The court further found that the state and federal firearms offenses involved different conduct. According to the opinion, the state case involved a shooting at rival gang members, while the federal firearms charge involved possession of a firearm during and in relation to the narcotics conspiracy. The court concluded that the sentencing-guideline provision Pickett referenced would not have required concurrent sentences and that the decision whether to impose concurrent sentences would instead have been discretionary. The court found no basis for Pickett’s claimed promise or reasonable belief that the sentences would run concurrently.

To the extent Pickett was challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ sentence calculation directly, the court stated that such a claim had to be addressed in the district where he was confined.

Disposition

The court stated that the petition was denied because it was barred by the one-year limitations period. It also stated that it independently dismissed the petition on the merits. The court denied a certificate of appealability because Pickett had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith, directed entry of judgment for the United States, and ordered the case closed.