Headbird v. United States, No. 15-1468 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), sentencing petitioner to 327 months in prison. Petitioner moved to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States, but the district court denied relief. The court agreed with other circuits that the decision in Descamps was dictated by the general principles set forth in existing precedent and did not establish a new rule. Therefore, petitioner's motion does not rely on a right that was “newly recognized” by the Supreme Court in Descamps, and the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's motion as untimely based on the limitations period of 18 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's opinion affirming Headbird's conviction on direct review, see United States v. Headbird, 461 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court did not err in determining Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) did not create a newly recognized right that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review and that Headbird's Section 2255 motion was untimely based on the limitations period set out 18 U.S.C. Section 2255(f)(1).
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.