Smith v. United States
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-04195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Smith v. United States, Judge Daniels denied Timothy Smith’s sentence challenge as untimely and barred by his plea waiver.
Timothy Smith’s federal sentence challenge was denied, and his separate request for a judicial recommendation about reentry-center placement and home confinement was also denied.
What happened
Smith v. United States involved Timothy Smith’s request to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Smith, who was representing himself, had pleaded guilty to drug-distribution and firearm charges and had agreed not to appeal or challenge his sentence.
The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Smith’s request. The court found that Smith filed too late, that his plea-agreement waiver barred the challenge, and that he had not shown an exception to the rule against raising claims that were not presented on direct appeal.
Judge George B. Daniels found no clear error in the recommendation, adopted it in full, and denied Smith’s motion to vacate his sentence. The court also denied Smith’s separate request for a recommendation about placement in a reentry center or home confinement.
The detailed version
- Smith v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-04195
- George Daniels
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Timothy Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana and possessing a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime. His plea agreement set a Guidelines range of 70 to 76 months and included a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months. Smith also agreed to waive his rights to appeal, bring a collateral challenge, or seek a sentence modification for a sentence at or below the stipulated range.
The court sentenced Smith to 10 months on the drug-conspiracy count and a consecutive mandatory term of 60 months on the firearm count, followed by three years of supervised release. Smith filed his sentence challenge on June 1, 2020. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who recommended denying the motion. Smith filed no objections.
Reasons for the Decision
Because Smith filed no objections, Judge Daniels reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning a clear mistake after reviewing the record. The court found none and adopted the report in full.
First, the court held that Smith’s motion was untimely under the one-year limitations period in § 2255. The opinion states that Smith’s conviction was entered on December 17, 2018, while his motion was filed no earlier than April 27, 2020. The court found that Smith did not show a government-created obstacle, newly discoverable supporting facts, or a newly recognized and retroactively applicable Supreme Court right that would provide a later filing date. The court also rejected Smith’s reliance on United States v. Davis, finding that Davis did not affect the drug-trafficking crime for which Smith was convicted.
Second, the court held that Smith’s claims were barred by the waiver in his plea agreement. The court found that Smith knowingly and voluntarily entered the agreement, which expressly waived collateral challenges under § 2255. The court also agreed that Smith’s claims were procedurally defaulted because he had not raised them on direct appeal and had not shown either a legally sufficient reason and resulting harm or actual innocence to excuse that default.
Disposition
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation in full and denied Smith’s motion to vacate his sentence. The Clerk of Court was directed to close that motion. The opinion also states that the court denied Smith’s separate motion requesting a judicial recommendation concerning placement in a residential reentry center and home confinement, leaving that determination to the Bureau of Prisons, and directed the Clerk to close that motion as well.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.