Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00457-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Ray Bailey
Petitioner
Bernie Ellis
Respondent

Document Text:

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

GERALD RAY BAILEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 2)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

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

On May 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED because it does not allege grounds that would entitle

petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 June 14, 2006, petitioner

filed a motion to extend time. On June 28, 2006, the court granted

petitioner an additional thirty (30) days within which to respond.

On July 5, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/24/06 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

 Petitioner makes no showing that he is factually innocent of the underlying 1

conviction; rather, Petitioner claims 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.") 

 Petitioner provides the citation of 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002); however, 2

that opinion was superseded and amended by 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2002). 

 Both Buckland and Sheppard relied on the holding in Apprendi that "any fact 3

[other than the fact of a prior conviction] that increases the penalty for a crime

beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved

beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 506 U.S. 466, 488-490 (2000).

2

In his objections, Petitioner continues to claim that section

2255 is inadequate and/or ineffective to challenge the instant

claims because his claim is based on subsequent court opinions that

have altered the prevailing interpretation of 18 U.S.C.

841(b)(1)(A),(B), resulting in his actual innocense of the

conviction. Petitioner relies on the cases of United States v. 1

Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2002) and United States v. 2

Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2000). Petitioner's reliance on

these cases is misplaced. Petitioner is attempting to disguise his

Apprendi claim by citing Buckland and Sheppard, which both involved

the application of Apprendi to claims that were raised on direct 3

appeal. Buckland, 289 F.3d at 563-568; Sheppard, 219 F.3d at 767-

769. Whereas, here, Petitioner is attempting to raise an Apprendi

claim on collateral review via § 2241, which is foreclosed by the

holding in Reynolds v. Cambra, 290 F.3d 1029, 1030 (9th Cir. 2002),

where the Ninth Circuit held that Apprendi does not apply

retroactively to cases on collateral review. Thus, even if

Petitioner were allowed to pass through the saving clause, his

claim is without merit. 

Case 1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/24/06 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

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 May 24, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED

because it does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and,

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3