Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00104/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00104-0/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 (federa

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELMO ANTONIO GEORGE, ) 

Reg. No. 63238-019, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-104-WHA 

)

DENNIS STAMPER, )

)

 Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 

corpus (Doc. No. 5) and supporting affidavit of claim (Doc. No. 12) filed by Elmo Antonio George

(“George”), a federal inmate incarcerated at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp. George is 

incarcerated on a 71-month sentence imposed upon him by the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Making a False Tax 

Return (2 counts). See United States v. George, Case No. 0:11-CR-60254-WPD-1 (S.D. Fla. 

2012). In this habeas action, George asserts that his submission of a registered bond promising to 

pay the restitution assessed in his criminal cases, i.e., $229,305, fully satisfies the judgment entered 

against him, regardless of the sentence imposed, and entitles him to immediate release from 

confinement.1 

 

1

The differing amounts of restitution referenced in this Recommendation reflect the amount of restitution imposed in 

the initial judgment - $299,305, and the amount of restitution levied in the amended judgment - $229,305. When 

referencing the registered bond, George identifies the amount of the bond as $299,905, which is the total of the 

restitution initially ordered by the trial court and the special assessments imposed upon both George and his wife. 

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 6
2

The respondent filed a response addressing the habeas petition in which he argues that 

George is entitled to no relief from this court. Doc. No. 15. George submitted a response in 

opposition to the respondent’s response. Doc. No. 20. Upon review of the petition, the response 

filed by the respondent and the response in opposition filed by George, the court concludes that 

the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be denied. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In his response, the respondent accurately sets forth the procedural history of this case.2

The relevant portion of the response reads as follows: 

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida, returned an 

indictment charging Elmo George and his common-law wife, Nasheba Hunte, with 

conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and two 

counts of filing false income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (CRDE 

2). Following a five-day trial, George and Hunte were convicted on all counts 

(CRDE 84-88). George was sentenced to a total of 71 months of imprisonment, 

three years of supervised release, $229,305 in restitution, and a $300 assessment 

(CRDE 131 [amended judgment and commitment order]). Hunte was sentenced to 

a total of 51 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $229,305 

in restitution, and a $300 assessment (CRDE 116). The defendants were ordered 

jointly and severally liable for the $229,305 in restitution (CRDE 139:19; CRDE 

140:23).

George appealed his conviction, but not his sentence, and the Eleventh 

Circuit affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion (CRDE 149 [mandate]). 

United States v. Hunte, 559 F. App’x 825 (11th Cir. 2014).

George filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2241 in 

the Middle District of Alabama, where he was incarcerated, challenging the validity 

of his conviction and sentence (14-688 CVDE 1). That petition was dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction (14-688 CVDE 6).

 

2

The respondent identifies documents filed in George’s criminal case before the Southern District of Florida as CRDE 

with an accompanying docket number. Documents filed in a previous habeas petition filed in this court by George, 

George v. Stamper, Case No. 14-CV-688-WKW-TFM, are identified as 14-688 CVDE followed by a docket entry 

number, whereas documents filed by George in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the Southern District of Florida, George 

v. United States, Case No. 15-CV-60336-WPD, are referenced as 15-60336 CVDE followed by a docket number. In 

addition, documents filed in George’s “Commercial Habeas Corpus” before the Southern District of Florida are 

identified as CRDE followed by a docket number. Finally, the documents filed in the instant case are cited as DE 

with a corresponding docket number. Exhibits attached to the response include a copy of George’s amended judgment 

and commitment order (Exhibit A - Doc. No. 15-1), a copy of the transcript of his sentencing hearing (Exhibit B -

Doc. No. 15-2), a copy of his “Commercial Habeas Corpus” (Exhibit C - Doc. No. 15-3) and a copy of the order 

dismissing this commercial habeas (Exhibit D - Doc. No. 15-4).

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 6
3

George subsequently filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (15-60336 CVDE 1) [in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida]. The District Court denied George’s motion without 

requesting a response from the United States (15-60336 CVDE 4). George appealed 

the denial of his § 2255 motion (15-60336 CVDE 5), which was dismissed because 

he had not made the necessary showing to obtain a certificate of appealability (15-

60336 CVDE 10).

George filed a motion seeking to reopen his § 2255 proceeding (15-60336 

CVDE 11) and an amended § 2255 motion (15-60336 CVDE 12). The motion to 

reopen was denied and the amended § 2255 motion was dismissed (15-60336 

CVDE 13).

On January 5, 2016, George filed a pro se “Commercial Habeas Corpus” in 

his criminal case requesting that the District Court vacate George’s judgment of 

imprisonment because he had allegedly satisfied the monetary judgment imposed 

in his criminal case by mailing a registered bond in the amount of $299,905 to the 

United States Treasury via the United States mail (CRDE 154). George argued that 

it was “no longer equitable” for his judgment to “have prospective application” 

once it had been “discharged” (CRDE 154). On January 19, 2016, the District 

Court dismissed the petition on three alternative grounds (CRDE 155). First, the 

Court found that any habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 would 

have to be filed in the Middle District of Alabama, where George was incarcerated 

(CRDE 155:2). Second, to the extent the pleading was a motion to vacate pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court found that the motion was successive and George 

could not proceed without first obtaining permission from the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals (CRDE 155:2). Finally, the Court found that if the pleading were 

interpreted to be “just another tax protestor frivolous filing, it [was] dismissed as 

non-sensical” (CRDE 155:2).

On February 11, 2016, George repackaged his unsuccessful “Commercial 

Habeas Corpus” petition and filed it as the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

currently before this Court (DE 1). In his initial petition, George requested that the 

Court issue a certificate of satisfaction of judgment; extinguish all liens and 

detainers; release all collateral; and grant any other appropriate relief because he 

had allegedly satisfied the judgment imposed in his criminal case when he

“tendered” a “[r]egistered bond” in the amount of $299,[9]05.00 as full payment 

(DE 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) (DE 4). 

Because the habeas petition failed to challenge the constitutionality of his current 

custody, the Magistrate Judge recommended that George’s petition be dismissed 

without prejudice with leave to seek the issuance of a satisfaction of judgment in 

his criminal case (DE 4:2).

George filed an objection to the R&R seeking leave to amend his claim to 

challenge the constitutionality of his detention (DE 5). George alleged that he had 

satisfied the judgment imposed in his criminal case [by submitting a registered bond 

promising payment of restitution and assessments] and that [the criminal judgment] 

was now void (DE 4). He further alleged that enforcing the remainder of the 

judgment was “no longer equitable” and that his continued incarceration “[i]n the 

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4

absence of a legal obligation” violates “the due process clause of the 5th 

amendment and the fundamental fairness doctrine” (DE 5:1). 

The Magistrate Judge construed George’s objection as an amended petition 

for habeas corpus (DE 6) and ordered the Warden to file a response by April 4, 

2016, showing cause why the writ should not be granted (DE 8). George 

subsequently filed an affidavit in support of his amended habeas claim (DE 12). In 

his affidavit, George again asserted that he had “tendered” a “[r]egistered bond” in 

the amount of $299,905.00 as payment of the judgment imposed in his criminal 

case (DE 11:1). George asserted that “the mere act of retaining” the bond 

“containing a promise” to pay $299,905.00 in satisfaction of [the monetary portion 

of] his criminal judgment was “a manifestation of assent to the terms” in the bond 

(DE 12:1). Therefore, George asserted that the criminal judgment had been 

discharged (DE 12:1).

Doc. No. 15 at 2-5 (footnotes omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that George’s sentence has not yet expired.3 In addressing George’s claim 

that he is entitled to release from his sentence based on his submission of a registered bond 

promising to pay restitution and assessments, the respondent argues that the petitioner’s “challenge 

to the execution of his sentence under § 2241 should be summarily denied on the merits because 

the records from George’s criminal case make it clear that he was sentenced to 71 months of 

imprisonment and ordered to pay $229,305 in restitution and a $300 special assessment. Even if 

George’s allegations regarding the payment of restitution and the special assessment were true, he 

would not be entitled to [the requested] relief because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would still be 

legally required to execute the separate incarceration portion of George’s sentence imposed by the 

District Court.” Doc. No. 15 at 5. In addition, the respondent contends that “according to the

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, [as of 

March 31, 2016] George still owes $229,169.81 in restitution. Only the $300 special assessment 

 

3

The records before the court establish that the 71-month sentence imposed upon George does not expire until 

December 19, 2016. In his most recent filing, George acknowledges that his release is December 19, 2016. Doc. No. 

27.

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 6
5

has been paid in full.” Id. at 5-6. “George’s claim that he has satisfied the monetary portion of 

his sentence by providing a bond promising to pay $299,905, even if true, would not satisfy or 

void his sentence of imprisonment.... [Furthermore,] George’s alleged registered bond promising 

to pay $299,905 to satisfy his criminal judgment does not constitute payment of the restitution 

ordered in his criminal case. [Again,] George would not be entitled to habeas relief even if it did, 

because he has not completed the term of imprisonment imposed in his criminal case.” Id. at 9 

(emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, the respondent asserts that the claim presented in 

the instant habeas petition is without merit. Id. at 10. 

This court must agree with the respondent as the payment of restitution does not in any 

way affect the length of the sentence imposed upon George; instead, the order of judgment requires 

that George serve his 71-month sentence and pay restitution. There is no basis in law for the 

argument made by George. Moreover, it is clear that the registered bond supplied by George 

merely promising payment of the ordered restitution does not constitute actual payment of the 

assessed restitution. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that George is entitled to no 

relief from this court. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned Magistrate Judge that the 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Elmo Antonio George be DENIED and 

this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before December 28, 2016 the parties may file objections 

to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections to the Recommendation will not be considered. Failure to file written objections 

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal 

and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge 

on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted 

or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11TH

Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 

1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

DONE this 13th day of December, 2016.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00104-WHA-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/13/16 Page 6 of 6