USA v. Paden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent/Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-22-35-RAW
) (CIV-26-101-RAW)
DONALD LEE PADEN, )
)
Petitioner/Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the petitioner to vacate dismissal.
On June 3, 2026, the court entered an order (#88) granting the
government’s motion to dismiss (#87) and dismissing petitioner’s §2255
petition as untimely. In the present motion, petitioner asserts he did not
receive a copy of the government’s motion and therefore was deprived of
his right to respond under Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings.
In the government’s response to the pending motion, it represents
that “the Government properly mailed the motion to Defendant’s address
of record, giving rise to the presumption that it was received.” (#92 at
3). There is Tenth Circuit authority for such a rebuttable presumption,
although not in this context. See Witt v. Roadway Express, 136 F.3d
6:22-cr-00035-RAW Document 93 Filed in ED/OK on 09/01/26 Page 1 of 3

1424, 1429-30 (10th Cir.1998). Petitioner has presented nothing to rebut
the presumption beyond his assertion of non-receipt.
Moreover, petitioner has not demonstrated prejudice in two
respects: (1) recognizing that his petition might be found untimely, he
preemptively filed a motion for equitable tolling (#85), which the court
addressed in its order; (2) he attached a copy of his proposed reply (#90-
1) to the present motion. In his proposed reply, he contends that his
petition falls within §2255(f)(4) because a “report” compiled by an inmate
and presented to the district court in Holloway v. United States, 26-CV-32
(N.D.Tex.) has “establish[ed] a new systematic understanding” of
petitioner’s contention on the merits in his petition. This court has
reviewed the docket sheet in Holloway and the district court nevertheless
found that petitioner’s §2255 petition untimely. For all practical
purposes, petitioner has “filed” his response and it seems an empty
formality to allow it, even if petitioner had rebutted the presumption of
receipt.*
Finally, even if petitioner’s untimely petition were considered, it
would be denied on the merits. His contention is that the child
*Petitioner asserts his proposed reply is “based solely on the portions of the Goverment’s motion that
was reprinted” in the court’s order. (#90-1 at n.1). The court finds petitioner’s proposed reply and his
motion for equitable tolling have sufficiently addressed the timeliness issue.
2
6:22-cr-00035-RAW Document 93 Filed in ED/OK on 09/01/26 Page 2 of 3

pornography statutes and sentencing scheme are unconstitutional
because they have not eradicated the existence of child pornography.
This court agrees with the court in Unger v. United States, 2026 WL
850474, *2 (E.D.Mo. 2026) that these same contentions “are not based
in law or logic.” Accordingly, “[t]hese are not novel legal theories, but
rather baseless attempts to attack his criminal conviction and sentence
well beyond the period of limitation.” Id.
It is the order of the court that the motion to vacate dismissal (#90)
is hereby denied.
ORDERED THIS 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026.
______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
6:22-cr-00035-RAW Document 93 Filed in ED/OK on 09/01/26 Page 3 of 3