govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_25-cv-01583-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
REV. DR. RAYMOND COOPER,  
 
 Movant,  
v.  
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
 
 Respondent. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
  
 No. 4:25-cv-01583-SEP 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 Before the Court is Movant Raymond Cooper’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  Doc. [1].  On April 15, 2026, the Court ordered Movant 
to show cause why the Motion should not be dismissed as time-barred.  Doc. [2].  Movant’s 
response was due on May 6, 2026, and no response has been received by the Court.  As such, the 
Motion to Vacate will be denied and dismissed as time-barred. 
BACKGROUND 
 On March 5, 2024, Movant pled guilty to attempted possession of child pornography.  
See United States v. Cooper, No. 4:21-cr-00190-SEP (E.D. Mo.), Doc. [144].  On May 8, 2024, 
the Court sentenced Movant to a total term of imprisonment of 60 months, followed by three 
years of supervised release.  Id. at Doc. [165].  Movant did not appeal. 
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District 
Courts provides that a district court may summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion if it plainly appears 
that the movant is not entitled to relief. 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f): 
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.  
The limitation period shall run from the latest of-- 
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 
(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 
Case: 4:25-cv-01583-SEP     Doc. #:  3     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
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. 
D
ISCUSSION 
 A district court may consider on its own initiative whether a habeas action is barred by 
the statute of limitations.  Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006).  Before dismissing a 
habeas action as time-barred, the Court must provide notice to the movant.  Id.  Here, the Court 
has provided the requisite notice, and Movant failed to respond.  
Review of the instant motion indicates that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). 
An unappealed criminal judgment becomes final for purposes of calculating the time limit when 
the time for filing a direct appeal expires.  Moshier v. United States, 402 F.3d 116, 118 (2d Cir. 
2005).  In this case, the judgment entered on May 8, 2024, became final 14 days later, on May 
22, 2024.  Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1).  As a result, the one-year period of limitations under § 2255 
expired on May 22, 2025.  The instant motion was signed by Movant on October 21, 2025, 
approximately 152 days late.  Doc. [1] at 12.  This action is therefore time-barred. 
 The Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability.  To do so in this 
case, the Court must find “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 
was correct in its procedural ruling.”  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).  Because this 
procedural ruling is not one that can be reasonably disputed, the Court will not issue a certificate 
of appealability.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 
 Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. [1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS TIME-
BARRED.  
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.  
 An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.  
  
Dated this 29th day of May, 2026.   
 _______________________________________ 
 SARAH E. PITLYK 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE  
Case: 4:25-cv-01583-SEP     Doc. #:  3     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight