Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2016 DNH 23

Bromfield v. USA

New Hampshire District Court

Decided February 4, 2016

New Hampshire District Court · decided 2016-02-04

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 208 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Maleng v. Cook

Decided 2016-02-04

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                     DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


Duke St. Vaughn Keith Bromfield

     v.                                  Case No. 16-cv-15-SM
                                         Opinion No. 
2016 DNH 023
United States of America


                             O R D E R


     Petitioner was convicted, consistently with his guilty

pleas, of making false statements (
18 U.S.C. § 1001
) and false

representation of a social security number (
42 U.S.C. § 408
(a)(7)).   He was sentenced to a year of probation on October

12, 2011.   He did not file a direct appeal.   Petitioner’s

sentence was fully served as of October 12, 2012.



     More than three years later, he filed this petition seeking

habeas relief under the provisions of 
28 U.S.C. § 2255
.     There

are two obvious and fundamental problems with the petition.

First, petitioner is not “in custody” for the purpose of

establishing federal habeas jurisdiction, because the sentence

imposed was fully expired when he filed the petition.     See

Maleng v. Cook, 
490 U.S. 488, 490-92
 (1989).     Second, the

petition is untimely.   A one-year period of limitation applies

to petitioners seeking relief under 
28 U.S.C. § 2255
, which


                                  1
begins to run on the date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final.      
28 U.S.C. § 2255
(f).    The judgment became final

in petitioner’s case in 2011, over four years before the

petition was filed.



                               CONCLUSION

      Because petitioner is not in custody with regard to the

conviction and sentence he seeks to challenge, the court is

without jurisdiction over the petition, and, because even if

jurisdiction could be established, the petition is untimely, the

requested relief is denied and the petition is dismissed.



      The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.       Petitioner

is free, however, to seek such a certificate from the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.



      SO ORDERED.


                                        ____________________________
                                        Steven J. McAuliffe
                                        United States District Judge

February 4, 2016

cc:   Brian R. Marsicovetere, Esq.
      Stephanie B. Hoffman, Esq.



                                    2

/2016/dnh/23 · .json · Public domain