United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Benjamin Bejar, Assistant United States Attorney, United
States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
Florentino Jaime-Perez, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for determination of Karin Florentino Jaime-Perez's
(“Jaime-Perez”) Motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (“2255 Motion”) to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence [Criminal Docket No. 51]. For the reasons
stated below the 2255 Motion is denied.
October 2014, Jaime-Perez entered a guilty plea to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Jaime-Perez's Plea Agreement [Docket No. 41] allowed
Jaime-Perez to appeal his sentence. On June 18, 2015,
Jaime-Perez was sentenced to 97 months in prison. Sentencing
J. [Docket No. 49]. The sentence was a three-level downward
variation from the applicable advisory guideline range. The
Judgment of Conviction was filed on June 18, 2015.
Jaime-Perez did not timely appeal his sentence.
March 9, 2017, Jaime-Perez filed this 2255 Motion arguing his
counsel was ineffective because counsel: 1) failed to file a
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for cooperation, 2) failed to
file a U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 motion for early disposition program,
3) promised Jaime-Perez his sentence would be reduced due to
the passage of an upcoming law, and 4) failed to file a
motion for a safety valve reduction under U.S.S.G.
§§ 2D1.1(b)(17) and 5C1.2.
Section 2255 Standard
U.S.C. § 2255 provides a person in federal custody with
a limited opportunity to collaterally attack the
constitutionality, jurisdictional basis, or legality of his
sentence. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S.
178, 185 (1979). Relief is reserved for violations of
constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries
which were outside a direct appeal and which, if untreated,
would result in a miscarriage of justice. See Poor
Thunder v. United States, 810 F.2d 817, 821-22 (8th Cir.
Statute of Limitations
2255 claim to be timely, it must typically be made within one
year from the date the conviction becomes final. See
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(i); Headbird v. United
States, 813 F.3d 1092, 1094 (8th Cir. 2016).
conviction became final on July 2, 2015, when the 14-day
period to appeal the Judgment expired. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (setting a 14-day time limit for filing a
notice of appeal in a criminal case). Thus, the one-year
statute of limitations period under § 2255(f)(1) expired
on July 2, 2016. This Motion, however, was filed on March 9,
2017. Id. This is months beyond the statute of
limitations and makes this Motion untimely. See United
States v. Hernandez, ...