UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Duke St. Vaughn Keith Bromfield

v. Case No. 16-cv-15-SM Opinion No.

United States of America

O R D E R

Petitioner was convicted, consistently with his guilty

pleas, of making false statements (

) and false

representation of a social security number (

(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

. 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,

(1989). Second, the

petition is untimely. A one-year period of limitation applies

to petitioners seeking relief under

, which

1 begins to run on the date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final.

(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.

2