Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00926/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00926-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THURMAN DEE PAYNE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00926-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER TERMINATING ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On August 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, and judgment be entered, terminating this action. These

Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. On September 12,

2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00926-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In his objections, Petitioner contends that he is “actually

innocence” of the crime as he was not eligible to be sentenced

under 4B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. However, Petitioner’s

claim does not present a claim of factual innocence of the

underlying conviction; rather, Petitioner complains of

constitutional error in the calculation of his sentence. 

Sentencing error does not constitute actual innocence as set forth

by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623

(1998) (“To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate

that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that

no reasonable juror would have convicted him.”). Like the

petitioner in Lorentsen, Petitioner fails to demonstrate actual

innocence. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 16, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment; and,

4. This action is therefore TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:05-cv-00926-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00926-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3