United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
N. Chatigny, United States District Judge
Richard Lespier brings this action pro se under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence
for murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1959(a)(1). The Government moves to dismiss the
petition, arguing that petitioner's claims are untimely
and without merit. For reasons that follow, the petition is
1998, petitioner was indicted for murder in aid of
racketeering. See United States v. Lespier, 3:
98-cr-102 (AHN). He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced
to life imorisonment, as required by § 1959(a)(1). The
Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. United States v.
Adorno, 5 Fed.Appx. 65, 65 (2d Cir. 2001)(summary
order). A motion for a new trial was denied.
March 16, 2009, petitioner moved to set aside the judgment
and dismiss the indictment. Lespier v. United
States, 3:09-cv-549 (RNC). The motion was denied.
Petitioner moved to reopen the case to file a notice of
appeal. The Court denied this motion on January 26, 2011, and
petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Second Circuit
granted the Government's motion for summary affirmance on
December 1, 2011. Lespier v. United States, No.
11-498 (2d Cir. Dec 1, 2011).
November 26, 2013, petitioner filed a motion in the Second
Circuit for leave to file a successive petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, which the Court denied. Lespier v.
United States, No. 13-4461 (2d Cir. Dec 26, 2013).
March 28, 2014, petitioner filed the present action claiming
his sentence was enhanced based on facts not found by the
jury in violation of Alleyne v. United States, 133
S.Ct. 2151 (2013). On February 17, 2015, petitioner amended
the petition to add claims alleging that he was deprived of
his right to effective assistance of counsel.
2255(f) requires that a federal habeas petitioner
file his petition within one year from the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
filed his claim more than a decade after his conviction
became final. He does not allege any facts supporting his
claims that could not have been ...