Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01494/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernie M. Bragg
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 23, 2015*

Decided October 23, 2015

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐1494           Appeal from the   

        United States District Court

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ERNIE M. BRAGG,

Defendant‐Appellant.

for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:08‐CR‐00077(01)RM

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ernie Bragg pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and

was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing the district court adopted

the presentence investigation report, including the probation officer’s recommendation

that Bragg receive an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), which provides

for a two‐level increase “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.”

The probation officer recounted that several persons who had bought crack from Bragg

told federal agents that they had seen him with a gun. Bragg did not object to the

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-1494 Document: 13 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15‐1494    Page 2

presentence report, nor did he file a direct appeal. Five years later in December 2014,

Bragg filed what he characterized as a “petition to amend” the presentence report

“under habeas challenge to effectuate and remove erroneous and false documentation.”

Bragg asserts that references to him having a gun are inaccurate, and he asks in his

petition that the district court order those references removed from the report. Bragg

explains that the mention of guns in the report has adversely affected his security

classification and will bar his eligibility for early release after he completes a drug‐ 

treatment program. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(5)(ii). The district

court denied Bragg’s motion with the explanation that objections to a presentence report

cannot be made after sentencing. That generalization is not entirely accurate, although it

is in this instance, and we agree with the district court that granting relief on Bragg’s

petition would not have been appropriate.

The Bureau of Prisons uses the information in presentence reports for several

purposes, including calculating credit for time served and designating inmate

classifications. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32 advisory committee note (1983); U.S. Dept. of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement P5100.08—Inmate Security

Designation and Custody Classification, Ch. 3 (Sept. 12, 2006), www.bop.gov/policy/

progstat/5100_008.pdf. This is why Rule 32(i)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure requires that sentencing courts either resolve disputed matters in a

presentence report or make explicit on the record that the dispute will not affect the

choice of sentence. See United States v. Brown, 716 F.3d 988, 993–94 (7th Cir. 2013). This

rule promotes the accuracy of presentence reports, yet mistakes that could affect the

execution of a defendant’s sentence might still remain. And as we have recognized, a

federal inmate who believes that inaccuracies in his presentence report are adversely

affecting the execution of his sentence may file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking

correction of the presentence report. See Johnson v. United States, 805 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th

Cir. 1986); United States v. Mittelsteadt, 790 F.2d 39, 40–41 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Lopez v.

Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 236 (2001) (challenging Bureau of Prison’s determination of

ineligibility for early release based on information in presentence report by filing

petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241). That is how we understand Bragg’s

petition, which, in fact, incorporates the word “habeas” in the lengthy title.1

                                                 

1 The government incorrectly asserts that Bragg’s waiver of his direct appeal from

his conviction and sentence forecloses his motion. To the contrary, Bragg’s appeal

waiver relates to the imposition of his sentence, not the execution. See Gray‐Bey v.

Case: 15-1494 Document: 13 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15‐1494    Page 3

Still, the district court could not have granted relief, or even evaluated the merits

of Bragg’s petition, because he filed in the wrong court. A § 2241 petition must be filed in

the district of confinement, Mittelsteadt, 790 F.2d at 41, and Bragg is incarcerated in the

Southern District of Illinois, not the Northern District of Indiana where he was

prosecuted. Thus, the district court should have dismissed the petition rather than deny

it. See al‐Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 710 (7th Cir. 2004); Middlesteadt, 790 F.2d at 41.

Moreover, Bragg should have named his custodian, not the United States, as the

respondent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Accordingly, we affirm the disposition, as modified to

reflect a dismissal without prejudice.   

We also note that Bragg’s petition appears to be premature: If he wishes to

challenge a Bureau of Prison’s determination regarding eligibility for early release, he

must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Bureau. Mittelsteadt, 790 F.2d

at 41; United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006). The Bureau of Prisons

provides administrative remedies pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10–542.19. If Bragg is

unable to obtain a satisfactory result from the Bureau of Prisons, he will then be able to

bring a § 2241 action naming the warden having custody over him, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243,

in the district where he is incarcerated, see Mittelsteadt, 790 F.2d at 41.   

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

                                                 

United States, 209 F.3d 986, 990 (7th Cir. 2000); Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694

(7th Cir. 1998).   

Case: 15-1494 Document: 13 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pages: 3