USA v. Yellow Hammer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.
Paul Anthony Yellow Hammer,
Defendant/Movant.
Criminal No.: 1:22-cr-00225
Civil No.: 1:25-cv-00248
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DISMISSING MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2255
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
asserting ineffective assistance of counsel against the Defendant’s public defender. Doc. No. 67.
In response, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the Motion to Vacate is time-
barred. Doc. No. 69. The Defendant has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss.
[¶ 2] 	Section 2255 provides for a one-year statute of limitations that begins running “the date on
which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). When, as here, a
defendant files a notice of appeal, the judgment becomes final after the time for filing a petition
for a Writ of Certiorari runs, which is ninety (90) days. Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 933 (8th
Cir. 2015) (quoting Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527, 532 (2003)). This one-year statute
of limitations can be tolled “under limited conditions, for example, where ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ beyond a prisoner’s control prevent the timely filing.” Grassler v. Bruton, 255 F.3d
492, 495 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Paige v. United States, 171 F.3d 559, 561 (8th Cir 1999)).
[¶ 3] 	Here, the Judgment of this Court was filed on August 28, 2023. Doc. No. 33. The Defendant
appealed. Doc. No. 35. On February 26, 2024, the Eighth Circuit filed its Judgment. Doc. No. 45.
Case 1:22-cr-00225-DMT Document 70 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 2

Any Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court from the Defendant,
therefore, was due on May 26, 2024. Because the Defendant did not file such a petition, his
judgment became final on May 27, 2024. See Camacho, 774 F.3d at 933. The one-year timeframe
to file a Motion to Vacate under § 2255, therefore, ended on May 27, 2025. Defendant did not file
his Motion to Vacate until five months later on October 27, 2025. Doc. No. 67. He has not given
any basis to toll this statute of limitations. Id. Therefore, the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate under
§ 2255 is time-barred.
[¶ 4] 	Accordingly, the United States Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Defendant’s
Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED. The Court makes these additional
findings:
(1) Any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in good faith, and may not be taken
in forma pauperis.
(2) Based upon the entire record before the Court, dismissal of the Motion is not debatable,
reasonably subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further
proceedings. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not be issued by this Court.
See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1997) (finding a district court
possesses the authority to issue certificates of appealability under § 2255(c)). If the
petitioner desires further review of his petition, he may request the issuance of a
certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in
accordance with Tiedeman.
[¶ 5] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED January 12, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:22-cr-00225-DMT Document 70 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2