Opinion
1:08-cr-29
06-03-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARIO PETERSON, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 52]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Defendant Mario Peterson pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting in the interference with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2; two counts of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1); and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Doc. 50.
On September 9, 2008, the Court imposed a 324-month prison sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence.
Doc. 36.
Doc. 50.
On May 16, 2022, Defendant filed a pro se motion titled “Post-Conviction Relief Petition.” The motion is hard to understand.
Doc. 52.
The Court does not reach the merits. In this case, “[t]he defendant's conviction has long been final, and a district court may modify a defendant's sentence only as permitted by statute.” And, “[a] criminal defendant who ‘wishes to challenge the imposition of his sentence ... must file a § 2255 [habeas] motion to vacate the sentence.'” But that § 2255 relief is not obviously available to Defendant since the one-year time-bar for filing a habeas petition has passed.
United States v. Phillips, No. 04-cr-42, 2013 WL 5675543, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013) (citing United States v. Ross, 245 F.3d 577, 586 (6th Cir.2001).
Id. (quoting King v. Thoms, 54 Fed.Appx. 435, 437 (6th Cir.2002)).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Peterson's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.