Davis v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his 171-month sentence on 2010 drug conspiracy charge, where, although said sentence was consistent with terms of plea agreement calling for his sentence to be 66 percent of low end of applicable sentencing range, both parties had anticipated defendant’s sentence to be only 80 months. Portions of defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his counsel was ineffective for failing to alert him to true potential sentence were untimely, since habeas petition was filed more than one year after his conviction had become final. Fact that defendant raised other claims in habeas petition that were timely did not allow Dist. Ct. to consider his untimely claims. Moreover, defendant could not prevail on his timely claim that Dist. Ct. violated Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) by making findings of fact that increased his statutory mandatory minimum term, where Supreme Court has not found Alleyne to be retroactive.