Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01320-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Bingham
Petitioner
Paul Schultz
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

RAYMOND BINGHAM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01320-OWW-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 6)

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 December 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as 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 January 9, 2006, Petitioner

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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. 

Case 1:05-cv-01320-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections, Petitioner contends that in denying his

prior § 2255 motion, the United States District Court for the

Central District of California misconstrued the language of Title

18 of the United States Code section 924(c) and applied the 1998

amendment to this section. Petitioner further contends that the

Magistrate Judge conceded that Petitioner is "actually innocent" of

the section 924 firearm enhancement. 

Petitioner is mistaken. First, as stated in the Findings and

Recommendations, the District Court in denying Petitioner's § 2255

motion properly applied the standard set forth in United States v.

Bailey, 516 U.S. 137, 148 (1995)(holding that use of a firearm

during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense includes

brandishing or displaying a firearm.) The section 924(c) violation

was specifically charged in the Indictment as Count Seven as

follows:

[18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)]

On or about August 21, 1991, in Los Angeles County,

within the Central District of California, defendant

Raymond Bingham [Petitioner] knowingly used and carried

the following firearms during and in relation to drug

trafficking crimes, namely, possession with intent to

distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of cocaine and possession with intent to

distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of cocaine base, both schedule II narcotic drug

controlled substances, in violation of Title 21, United

States Code, Section 841(a)(1): . . . 

(Court Doc. 3; Appendix at 2.) Thus, the firearm charge was

specifically plead and proven to the jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. Further, the 1998 amendment of § 924(c)(1) "superseded the

Case 1:05-cv-01320-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 As reflected in Public Law No. 105-386, the 1998 amendment to section 1

924(c)(1)(A) read:

Except to the extent that a greater maximum sentence is otherwise

provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any

person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug

trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking

crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use

of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may

be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a

firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm,

shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of

violence or drug trafficking crime . . . 

 "To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light 2

of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have

convicted him." Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (quoting Schlup

3

Court's holding in Bailey that possession of a firearm was

insufficient to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), as amended by Pub.L.No. 105-386, 112

Stat. 3469 (1998) (adding possession of firearm in furtherance of

the crime as action sufficient to apply the five-year mandatory

minimum sentence)." United States v. Beaudion, 416 F.3d 965, 969

n.4 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner's contention that the Central

District applied the 1998 amendment to §924(c) which added a

"higher level of proof" necessary for a conviction under this

section, is unfounded and without merit. The 1998 amendment did 1

not change the prior language of the statute - any person who,

during and in relation to any crime of violence of drug trafficking

uses or carries a firearm - of which Petitioner was convicted, it

merely added another basis for finding possession. Id. In

addition, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is "actually

innocent" of the section 924 violation.2

Case 1:05-cv-01320-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 4
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

v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327-28, 115 S.Ct. 851 (1995)). "Actual innocence" means

factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency. Id.

4

Here, Petitioner contends that he is innocent because "[t]he

testimony that Ms. Casey gave is not enough to sustain [his]

conviction" because there was no other testimony to corroborate her

testimony. (Objections, at 4.) However, Petitioner’s assertions fail

to show that he is actually innocent of the crime. At best,

Petitioner’s allegations question the sufficiency of the evidence

against him, and do not establish factual innocence. Bousley, 523

U.S. at 623, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (actual innocence requires a showing of

factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency). Petitioner's

objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 13,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as 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: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01320-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 02/16/06 Page 4 of 4