Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    United States v. Maurice Parks, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Maurice Montrae Parks appealing the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. Parks claimed his sentencing guidelines range was improperly enhanced and that his motion should be considered timely based on United States v. Simmons. However, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal based on its recent en banc decision in Whiteside v. United States, which held that Simmons represented a change in law, not a new "fact", and does not independently justify equitable tolling. As Parks' arguments were foreclosed by this precedent, the Court upholds the dismissal of his motion as untimely without need for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Maurice Parks, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    57 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Maurice Montrae Parks appealing the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. Parks claimed his sentencing guidelines range was improperly enhanced and that his motion should be considered timely based on United States v. Simmons. However, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal based on its recent en banc decision in Whiteside v. United States, which held that Simmons represented a change in law, not a new "fact", and does not independently justify equitable tolling. As Parks' arguments were foreclosed by this precedent, the Court upholds the dismissal of his motion as untimely without need for oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7288

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Maurice Montrae Parks appealing the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. Parks claimed his sentencing guidelines range was improperly enhanced and that his motion should be considered timely based on United States v. Simmons. However, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal based on its recent en banc decision in Whiteside v. United States, which held that Simmons represented a change in law, not a new "fact", and does not independently justify equitable tolling. As Parks' arguments were foreclosed by this precedent, the Court upholds the dismissal of his motion as untimely without need for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    57 views3 pages

    United States v. Maurice Parks, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Maurice Montrae Parks appealing the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. Parks claimed his sentencing guidelines range was improperly enhanced and that his motion should be considered timely based on United States v. Simmons. However, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal based on its recent en banc decision in Whiteside v. United States, which held that Simmons represented a change in law, not a new "fact", and does not independently justify equitable tolling. As Parks' arguments were foreclosed by this precedent, the Court upholds the dismissal of his motion as untimely without need for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7288

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    MAURICE MONTRAE PARKS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:10-cr-00127-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00500-BR)

    Submitted:

    January 15, 2015

    Decided:

    January 20, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
    May-Parker,
    Kristine
    L.
    Fritz,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Maurice

    Montrae

    Parks

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion as untimely


    and

    partially

    denying

    reconsideration.

    The

    district

    court

    granted a certificate of appealability as to its conclusion that


    Parks motion was not timely filed.
    this

    appeal

    are

    controlled

    by

    our

    The issues presented in


    decision

    in

    Whiteside

    v.

    United States, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. Dec. 19,
    2014) (en banc) (No. 13-7152).

    For the reasons that follow, we

    affirm.
    In

    his

    2255

    motion,

    Parks

    asserted

    that

    his

    Guidelines range was improperly enhanced under U.S. Sentencing


    Guidelines Manual 2K2.1(a)(2), (b)(6) (2009), because certain
    offenses used to establish these enhancements were not predicate
    felonies under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
    2011) (en banc).

    Although Parks motion was filed more than a

    year after his conviction became final, see 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)


    (providing one-year statute of limitations for filing of 2255
    motion),
    timely.

    he

    proffers

    two

    reasons

    why

    his

    2255

    motion

    is

    First, he asserts, his motion was filed within one year

    of Simmons, and therefore within one year of the date on which


    the

    facts

    discovered

    supporting
    through

    U.S.C. 2255(f)(4).

    [his]

    the

    claim

    exercise

    of

    due

    could

    diligence.

    have

    been

    See

    28

    Second, he claims that Simmons constitutes


    2

    an

    extraordinary

    circumstance

    outside

    entitles him to equitable tolling.

    of

    his

    control

    that

    See Holland v. Florida, 560

    U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (describing required showing for equitable


    tolling of petitions for collateral review).
    Both of Parks arguments are foreclosed by our en banc
    decision

    in

    Whiteside.

    In

    that

    case,

    we

    held

    that

    Simmons

    represented a change in law and not a fact triggering the


    statute of limitations under 2255(f)(4).
    7245453, at *3-4.
    independent
    Accordingly,
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    We also held that Simmons does not provide an

    basis
    we

    are

    Whiteside, 2014 WL

    for

    affirm
    oral

    equitable
    the

    district

    argument

    adequately

    tolling.
    courts

    because

    presented

    Id.

    in

    the
    the

    at

    *4-5.

    judgment.

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like