USA v. Longman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CR-22-151-R
)
SHANNON LONGMAN, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 57].
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that a court must
“promptly examine” a habeas petition and must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears
from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving
party is not entitled to relief.” Additionally, “Tenth Circuit case law is clear that a court
may raise a procedural bar in the habeas corpus context on its own motion.” United States
v. DeClerck, 252 F. App’x 220, 224 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Hardiman v. Reynolds, 971
F.2d 500 (10th Cir. 1992). “[I]f a court elects to raise a defense sua sponte, the court must
generally afford the movant an opportunity to respond to the defense.” Hines v. United
States, 971 F.2d 506 (10th Cir. 1992)).
Section 2255 imposes a one-year statute of limitations for federal prisoners to bring
their motion. The limitation period runs from the latest of
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
Case 5:22-cr-00151-R Document 59 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by
governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by
such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court
and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Here, Defendant entered a plea of guilty and did not file a direct
appeal. Her sentence and judgment of conviction was entered on July 19, 2023 and became
final fourteen days later. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (requiring notice of appeal
within fourteen days after entry of criminal judgment); United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d
1223, 1227–28 (10th Cir. 2006) (“If the defendant does not file an appeal, the criminal
conviction becomes final upon the expiration of the time in which to take a direct criminal
appeal.”). Defendant filed her motion on March 20, 2026, well past the expiration of the
one-year time limit contained in § 2255(f)(1), and no other factual or legal basis for a
finding of timeliness is apparent. Defendant’s motion thus appears to be untimely and
subject to dismissal with prejudice.
The Court therefore directs Defendant to show cause by May 4, 2026 as to why the
Court should not dismiss the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence as time-barred. Failure to respond within this time period will result in
dismissal without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2026.
Case 5:22-cr-00151-R Document 59 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2