Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seabrum v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

June 13, 2018

ROBERT SEABRUM, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Movant Robert Seabrum (“Seabrum”), who is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution-Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina, has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1.) Seabrum also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The Court DISMISSES as moot Seabrum's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. For the reasons which follow, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS Seabrum's Section 2255 Motion, DENY Seabrum in forma pauperis status on appeal and a Certificate of Appealability, and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

         BACKGROUND

         Seabrum was charged by information with two counts of travel in interstate commerce for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421.[1] Information, United States v. Seabrum, 2:16-cr-16 (S.D. Ga. July 1, 2016), ECF No. 1. Seabrum entered into agreement with the Government to plead guilty to both counts of the information, and, in exchange, the Government would move to dismiss the indictment against Seabrum in Case Number 2:16-cr-9. Plea Agreement, United States v. Seabrum, 2:16-cr-16 (S.D. Ga. July 7, 2017), ECF No. 12. On February 10, 2017, the Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood entered judgment against Seabrum as to both counts of the information and sentenced him to sixty (60) months as to each count, to be served consecutively; Judge Wood also dismissed all counts of the indictment in Case Number 2:16-cr-9. J., United States v. Seabrum, 2:16-cr-16 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2017), ECF No. 15. Seabrum did not file a direct appeal.

         DISCUSSION

         On May 8, 2018, Seabrum filed the instant Section 2255 Motion, and it was filed in this Court on May 14, 2018. (Docs. 1, 1-1.) Seabrum generally alleges his attorney, Richard Allen, rendered ineffective assistance during the plea and sentencing phases of his criminal proceedings. (Doc. 1.)

         This Court examines whether Seabrum timely filed his Motion. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (“The judge who receives the motion must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears . . . that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion . . . .”).

         I. Seabrum's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

         As noted above, Seabrum filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The Court DISMISSES as moot Seabrum's Motion, as there is no filing fee applicable to Section 2255 motions. Rule 3, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Advisory Committee's Note to 1976 Adoption (“There is no filing fee required of a movant under these rules[]” “to recognize specifically the nature of a § 2255 motion as being a continuation of the criminal case whose judgment is under attack.”); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

         II. Whether Seabrum Timely Filed his Section 2255Motion

         To determine whether Seabrum filed his Section 2255 Motion in a timely manner, the Court must look to the applicable statute of limitations periods. Motions made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are subject to a one-year statute of limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). This limitations period runs from the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(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 governmental action;
(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.