United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 1, 2009, a jury found David Rich guilty of conspiracy
to distribute and possession with intent to distribute
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846, possession with
intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B); possession of a firearm in
furtherance of drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c); possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and
assault on law enforcement officers, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 111.
April 22, 2010, Rich was sentenced to life imprisonment plus
twenty years. Rich filed an appeal, and the Fourth Circuit
affirmed his conviction in United States v. Rich,
434 Fed.Appx. 224 (4th Cir. 2011).
November 15, 2013, Rich was resentenced to a total term of
360 months of imprisonment, after seeking relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255, because one of his prior felony drug
offenses was vacated on state coram nobis review.
Rich filed an appeal, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed his
amended judgment on July 2, 2014. United States v.
Rich, 577 Fed.Appx. 234 (4th Cir. 2014).
sentence was reduced on November 3, 2016, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines, to a total term of 300 months of
imprisonment. (ECF 127)
is Rich's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, which he filed on December 18, 2017. (ECF 130). Rich
claims that he is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to
Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017) and
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct.
2243 (2016). This is Rich's first § 2255 motion
filed since his amended judgment was issued on November 15,
2013 (ECF 100); therefore, it is not second or successive.
See In re Gray, 850 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2017)
(“when a habeas petition is the first to challenge a
new judgment, it is not second or successive within the
meaning of § 2244(b)”) (citing Magwood v.
Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010)). See also In re
Rich, No. 17-305 (4th Cir. July 7, 2017) (denying
Rich's request for authorization to file a second or
successive §2255 motion as unnecessary).
has filed an Answer seeking to dismiss Rich's Motion as
time-barred. (ECF 131) Rich has filed a Reply with
supplements. (ECF Nos. 133, 134, 135). The parties'
submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons
to follow, Rich's Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C
§ 2255, (ECF No. 130) is DISMISSED as untimely.
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2255, the limitation period
runs from the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
(3) 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; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the