Opinion
Case No. 14 C 1694 Criminal Case No. 09 CR 278
03-13-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BRANDT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
William Brandt ("Brandt") has just tendered a self-prepared motion for relief seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255"), advancing three grounds as the basis for vacating the sentence that this Court imposed on March 5, 2012 following Brandt's guilty plea in the criminal case identified in the caption of this memorandum order. Because Section 2255(f) establishes a one-year limitation period to file such a motion, Brandt's effort to seek relief has long since been barred by limitations: Like other Courts of Appeals that have decided when a conviction becomes "final" so as to start the limitations clock ticking, ours has fixed that date -- in the absence of an appeal -- as the date on which the deadline for filing a notice of appeal expires (Clarke v. United States, 703 F. 3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2013)). In this instance Brandt did not take an appeal, so the date that started the clock ticking was March 19, 2012.
Brandt's motion specifies March 4, 2014 as the operative date of the filing of his Section 2255 motion under the "mailbox rule" (did he mistakenly believe that the limitations period was two years rather than one?).
It is of course possible that the Government might waive that limitations defense (for untimeliness is not a jurisdictional bar), so that a copy of this memorandum order is also being transmitted to Eric Hoffman of the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, who handled the case before this Court. Because a decision on the assertion or nonassertion of a limitations defense should involve no complexity, the United States is ordered to file a statement reflecting its position on or before March 27, 2014.
__________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge