Bromfield v. USA

1
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
Case 1:16-cv-00015-SM Document 5 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 2

2
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.
Case 1:16-cv-00015-SM Document 5 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2