United States v. Cleveland , 13 F. App'x 71 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-7612
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TROY V. CLEVELAND,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-93-402, CA-99-1030-AM)
    Submitted:   May 31, 2001                  Decided:   June 12, 2001
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Troy V. Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Troy Cleveland appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
    first motion for relief under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West 1994 & Supp.
    2000) as time barred under the limitations period imposed under the
    Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
    See § 2255 ¶ 6.     However, Cleveland fails to demonstrate that he
    could not reasonably have moved for relief under § 2255 within that
    one-year period, and acknowledges that he was aware of the factual
    predicate for his claim well before his one year window for filing
    a § 2255 motion closed.      Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, and dismiss the appeal because the district court
    properly dismissed Cleveland’s § 2255 motion as time barred under
    the AEDPA.    See Weaver v. United States, 
    195 F.3d 123
    , 124 (2d Cir.
    1999); cf. United States v. Pregent, 
    190 F.3d 279
    , 284 (4th Cir.
    1999) (ruling that to the extent the Appellant’s motion “was more
    properly characterized as a collateral attack under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
    , th[at] motion was filed after the statute of limitations
    expired,” and therefore properly denied).      We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7612

Citation Numbers: 13 F. App'x 71

Judges: Wilkins, Traxler, King

Filed Date: 6/12/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024