United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael McShane United States District Judge
Edmund Keith Bradshaw moves to modify his federal prison
sentence of 46 months imposed on September 9, 1997 after a
plea of guilty to bank robbery. Bradshaw seeks to modify his
sentence to run concurrent with his 250-month state prison
sentence. Bradshaw alleges this modification will allow him
to participate in rehabilitation programs that he currently
cannot enter with his current sentence structure.
Bradshaw's motion, essentially a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion, is time-barred, not a cognizable claim, and
procedurally barred. Bradshaw's Motion, ECF No. 31, is
1997, Bradshaw robbed a credit union and was charged with
bank robbery. During the pendency of the federal charges,
Bradshaw was indicted in Lane County, Oregon for robbery
charges based on a series of separate armed robberies.
Bradshaw resolved the federal charges by pleading guilty, in
which he received a sentence of 46 months and three years of
supervised release. Resp. ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 32.
1998, Bradshaw was transferred to state custody to face the
state charges. Following a trial, Bradshaw was sentenced to
250 months in state prison, which the state court ordered to
be served consecutive to his federal sentence. Bradshaw
completed his federal sentence on August 23, 2000 and was
released to state custody. Bradshaw will complete his state
sentence on June 23, 2021. After completion of this sentence,
Bradshaw will begin his three year federal post-prison
supervised release and his 36-month state post-prison
supervision. Resp. ¶¶ 2-3.
U.S.C. § 2255 provides:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established
by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the
ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or
that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
law, or otherwise subject to collateral attack may move the
court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.
there has been a "denial or infringement of the
constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the
judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall
vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the
prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct
the sentence as may appear appropriate." Id.
seeks modification of his 46-month federal sentence to run
concurrent with his 250-month state sentence. Bradshaw
alleges he cannot enter into rehabilitation programs with his
current sentence structure. Although Bradshaw did not title
his motion as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it is a
collateral attack on his federal sentence and the Court
treats it as a § 2255 motion. See United States v.
Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2000)
(explaining that a motion that can be classified as a §
2255 motion will be classified as such and captioning the
motion as a common law writ will not circumvent the statute
of limitations contained in § 2255).
Bradshaw's Motion is Time-Barred
motion is time barred by the one-year statute of limitations
contained in § 2255. § 2255(f) provides that
motions are subject to a one-year period of ...