United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Antonius Brett El-X, pro se.
Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on defendant Antonius Brett
El-X's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 118. The Court
previously asked El-X to explain why his motion should not be
denied because it was filed more than one year after his
sentence became final. ECF No. 120. Instead of explaining why
his motion was timely, El-X repeated his argument that he was
improperly sentenced as a career offender. See ECF
§ 2255 motion may be filed within one year of “the
date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). As the Court
observed in its previous order, however, El-X did not file
his § 2255 motion until August 1, 2016. This was almost
four years after his sentence became final on August 6, 2012.
See ECF No. 120 at 1-2. Therefore, El-X's motion
is not timely under § 2255(f)(1).
a § 2255 motion may be filed within one year of
“the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f)(3). El-X cites several Supreme Court decisions
in his § 2255 motion and his subsequent filings:
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016);
Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016);
Samuel Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2015); Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276
(2013); Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S.
133 (2010); Shephard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13
(2005); and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575
“Mathis did not announce a ‘new'
rule of constitutional law.” United States v.
Pape, No. 12-CR-0251, 2017 WL 235178, at *3 (D. Minn.
Jan. 18, 2017). It simply applied existing Supreme Court
precedent to an Iowa statute. See Mathis, 136 S.Ct.
at 2251-54; see also United States v. Taylor, 672 F.
App'x 860, 864 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Supreme
Court explicitly stated in Mathis that it was not
announcing a new rule . . . .”).
Johnson did “announce a new rule of
constitutional law, ” which Welch then made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Donnell v. United States, 826 F.3d 1014, 1015 (8th
Cir. 2016). But El-X did not file his § 2255 motion
within one year of Samuel Johnson. And in any event,
El-X's claim does not actually rely on Samuel
Johnson. Samuel Johnson invalidated the
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, whereas
El-X's § 2255 motion argues that his prior
conviction for Hobbs Act robbery should not be considered as
a crime of violence under the elements clause or the force
clause of the career-offender guideline. Because
El-X's motion “is not truly based upon
[Samuel] Johnson, it does not get the
benefit of the new one-year limitations period established by
§ 2255(f)(3).” United States v. Munoz,
198 F.Supp.3d 1040, 1044 (D. Minn. 2016); see also
Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562, 565 (7th Cir.
2016) (noting that Samuel Johnson “does not
have anything to do with the elements clause of either the
Guidelines or the Armed Career Criminal Act, ” so it
does not give federal prisoners “a new one-year period
to seek collateral relief on a theory that the elements
clause does not apply to a particular conviction”).
finally, El-X did not file his § 2255 motion within one
year of Descamps, Curtis Johnson,
Shephard, or Taylor. Descamps also
did not recognize a new constitutional right. See
Headbird v. United States, 813 F.3d 1092, 1094-97 (8th
El-X did not file his § 2255 motion within one year of
the date on which his sentence became final, or within one
year of the date on which the Supreme Court recognized a new
constitutional right that entitles him to relief, his motion
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant's motion to amend [ECF No. 121] and
defendant's motion to file a supplemental petition [ECF
No. 122] are GRANTED.
2. Defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF ...