US v. Martrey Newby, No. 14-6195 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6195 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTREY ANTWAIN NEWBY, a/k/a Trey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00051-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00042-FL) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martrey A. Newby, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, Joshua Bryan Royster, Shailika K. Shah, Augustus D. Willis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martrey Antwain Newby appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We vacate this portion of the district court s order and remand for further proceedings. Newby does not, however, challenge on appeal the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. Thus, he has forfeited appellate review of the district court s decision on that issue, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and we affirm that portion of the district court s order. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( AEDPA ), a one year statute of limitations applies to the filing of a § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. limitations period runs from the latest of: § 2255(f). The (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which any government-imposed impediment to filing the motion is removed; (3) the date on which the asserted constitutional right was recognized and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Id. With regard to subsection (f)(1), it is well settled that finality attaches when the 2 Supreme Court affirms a conviction on the merits on direct review or denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari petition expires. 522, 527 (2003). or when the time for filing a Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. Here, the Supreme Court denied Newby s timely- filed petition for writ of certiorari on March 28, 2011. Thus, his § 2255 motion, filed on March 22, 2012, was timely under the AEDPA. Accordingly, we vacate the district court s dismissal of Newby s § 2255 motion as untimely filed and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
