United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is petitioner Tara Mazzeo's motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. (ECF No. 55). The government filed a response
(ECF No. 71), to which petitioner replied (ECF No. 85).
February 26, 2013, a jury verdict was entered finding
petitioner guilty on counts one and three of the indictment
(ECF No. 1). (ECF No. 30). On September 5, 2013, the court
sentenced petitioner to five (5) years probation per count to
run concurrently with special conditions. (ECF No. 42).
Judgment was entered on September 9, 2013. (ECF No. 43).
September 9, 2013, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (ECF
No. 44). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on
January 23, 2015 (ECF No. 49), and the order on mandate
affirming the district court's judgment was entered on
April 7, 2015 (ECF No. 52).
instant motion, petitioner moves to vacate arguing
ineffective legal counsel. (ECF No. 55).
prisoners “may move . . . to vacate, set aside or
correct [their] sentence” if the court imposed the
sentence “in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Section 2255 relief should be granted only where “a
fundamental defect” caused “a complete
miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United
States, 417 U.S. 333, 345 (1974); see also Hill v.
United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).
on § 2255 motions are based on the fact that the movant
“already has had a fair opportunity to present his
federal claims to a federal forum, ” whether or not he
took advantage of the opportunity. United States v.
Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). Section 2255 “is
not designed to provide criminal defendants multiple
opportunities to challenge their sentence.” United
States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993).
asserts that the instant motion is timely pursuant to §
2255(f)(1). (ECF No. 55 at 5). The court disagrees.
to vacate a sentence pursuant to § 2255 are subject to a
one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
The one-year period runs from the latest of-
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
. . .
(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. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
of conviction was entered on September 9, 2013 (ECF No. 43),
and the order on mandate affirming the district court's
judgment was entered on April 7, 2015 (ECF No. 52).
Petitioner filed the ...