Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 10 

Page 1of10 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 


GAINESVILLE DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. CASE NO.1 :98-cr-5-MP -GRJ 

BRODDRICK DESHON MONGO, 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This case came before the undersigned for oral argument on Defendant's 

pending motions for postconviction relief. See Doc. 29, Defendant's pro se letter 

motion for correction of his sentence, and Doc. 39, Defendant's amended motion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed through appointed counsel. For the following 

reasons, the undersigned recommends that the motions be denied. 

Background 

Defendant's postconviction motions stem from his guilty plea to one count of a 

superseding indictment charging him with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g) and 924(e). Defendant was 

sentenced on August 7, 1998, to 180 months' imprisonment as an Armed Career 

Criminal based on three prior felony convictions, including a 1996 Florida conviction for 

battery on a law enforcement officer (BOLEO). Defendant did not appeal. He is 

presently incarcerated at FCC Coleman, within the Middle District of Florida. 

Defendant's letter motion, Doc. 29, concerns the Bureau of Prison's calculation 

of his sentence. Defendant contends that the BOP originally calculated his release 

date as February 25, 2011, allowing credit for time spent in the custody of the State of 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11109/11 Page 2 of 10 

Page 20(10 

Florida for a conviction and sentence imposed following his federal conviction. The 

BOP subsequently determined that Defendant was not entitled to such state custody 

credit, and recalculated Defendant's sentence. Defendant now has a projected release 

date of June 25, 2021. Defendant seeks a new sentencing judgment nunc pro tunc to 

reflect that his federal sentence should run concurrent to his State of Florida sentence. 

Defendant's amended § 2255 motion, Doc. 39, asserts that he is entitled to 

resentencing due to changes in the substantive law controlling his qualification as an 

Armed Career Criminal. Specifically, Defendant argues that the Florida offense of 

battery upon a law enforcement officer no longer qualifies as a violent felony for 

purposes of sentencing under the ACCA. See United States v. Williams, 609 F.3d 

1168,1169-70 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 130 

S. Ct. 1265 (2010), the fact of a conviction for felony battery on a law enforcement 

officer in Florida, standing alone, no longer satisfies the "crime of violence" 

enhancement of the sentencing guidelines). 

The Government filed a motion to dismiss Defendant's letter motion for lack of 

jurisdiction, arguing that the relief sought with respect to Defendant's sentence 

calculation is unavailable under § 2255, but must be sought by way of a § 2241 habeas 

corpus petition in the district in which Defendant is confined. Doc. 40. The 

Government filed a response to the amended § 2255 motion, arguing that even without 

Defendant's prior conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer Defendant had 

three prior convictions for serious drug offenses that qualify as predicate offenses for 

purposes of ACCA sentencing. In a footnote, the Government states that the amended 

§ 2255 motion is barred by the statute of limitations, and that Defendant's sentencing 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:98-cr·00005·MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 10 

Page 30f 10 

claims are procedurally defaulted. Doc. 44 & n. 2. In reply, Defendant contends that 

without a new sentencing hearing his right to due process would be violated if other 

predicate convictions were substituted for purposes of ACCA sentencing. Defendant 

maintains that his sentence-calculation claim may properly be considered in this Court, 

and that he has exhausted all BOP remedies with respect to that claim. 

Sentence-Calculation Claim 

With respect to Defendant's sentence-calculation claim, Defendant concedes 

that the Court's judgment did not provide that Defendant's federal sentence should run 

concurrent with a subsequent state sentence. Defendant requested that the BOP 

review his case for nunc pro tunc designation of the state prison for service of his 

federal sentence, and award custody credit for time spent in state prison towards 

Defendant's federal sentence. Defendant submitted a copy of the BOP's administrative 

remedy response denying the request, in which the BOP represents that it reviewed the 

request in accordance with 18 U.S.C § 3621 (b), and determined that the statutory 

factors did not warrant nunc pro tunc designation. Doc. 45. 

Under these circumstances, if Defendant is dissatisfied with the BOP's resolution 

of his request and determination of his custody credits, his remedy is to file a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the BOP's execution of his sentence. It is 

well established that the BOP is charged with the responsibility of sentence 

computation and other administrative matters regarding the length of a prisoner's 

confinement. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) ("After a district court 

sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the 

responsibility for administering the sentence."); Hicks v. Jordan, 165 Fed. Appx. 797 

Case No: 1:98-cr"()5-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 10 

Page4of10 

(11th Cir. 2006) (§ 2241 case seeking nunc pro tunc credit; noting that the "Attorney 

General has the authority to determine what credit, if any, is due a prisoner for time 

served, and the Attorney General has delegated the right to make this determination to 

the BOP."); Pierce v. Holder 614 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 2010) ("Where a federal 

sentence was imposed before a state sentence, the BOP may indirectly award credit for 

time served in state prison by deSignating nunc pro tunc the state prison as the place in 

which the prisoner serves a portion of his federal sentence.") (citing Barden v. Keohane, 

921 F.2d 476, 480 (3d Cir.1990)). In Pierce, the Fifth Circuit noted that the sentencing 

court lacked jurisdiction to modify a sentence in order to preclude a prisoner's request 

for time credit, because the determination as to whether to make a nunc pro tunc 

designation is within the BOP's discretion. Pierce, 614 F.3d at 160 n.1 (citing Wilson, 

503 U.S. at 335). 

A § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the duration of a prisoner's 

confinement must be filed in the federal judicial district encompassing the facility where 

he is incarcerated. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). Defendant presently 

is confined at FCC Coleman, which is within the jurisdiction of the Middle District of 

Florida, and accordingly his challenge to the BOP's denial of nunc pro tunc designation 

should be filed in that District. 

For these reasons, Defendant's motion seeking relief with respect to the BOP's 

determination of credits on his federal sentence and nunc pro tunc designation is not 

cognizable in this Court, and the motion should be denied. 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09111 Page 5 of 10 

Paga 50(10 

ACCA Sentencing Claim 

(1) Procedural Default 

Prior to the oral argument in this case, the Government filed a Notice of 

Supplemental Authority in support of its assertion that Defendant's ACCA sentencing 

claim was procedurally defaulted because Defendant did not raise the claim on appeal, 

and such procedural default bars consideration of the claim in the instant § 2255 

motion. Doc. 50 (citing McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011)). 

In McKay, the defendant pleaded guilty in March 2006 to four controlledsubstance offenses, and was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.1 because of prior felony convictions for (1) carrying a concealed weapon, a 

crime of violence under the Guidelines, and (2) a controlled-substance offense. The 

defendant did not object to the career-offender enhancement and did not appeal. In 

October 2008, the defendant filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 arguing 

that in light of Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008); and United States v. 

Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008), his prior conviction for carrying a concealed 

weapon no longer qualified as a "crime of violence" for purposes of career-offender 

sentencing. The defendant argued that his procedural default of the claim should be 

excused because he was "actually innocent" of his career offender sentence. 

The district court concluded that the claim was a nonconstitutional sentencing 

claim that was not cognizable under § 2255 because it could have been raised on direct 

appeal. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit declined to decide whether the claim was 

cognizable under § 2255. Instead, the Court concluded that the defendant's 

sentencing claim was procedurally defaulted. The Court explained that the defendant's 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09111 Page 6 of 10 

Page 60f10 

procedural default could be excused only jf one of the two exceptions to the procedural 

default rule applied: (1) cause and prejudice, or (2) a miscarriage of justice, or actual 

innocence. McKay, 657 F.3d at 1196. The defendant did not argue that the causeand-prejudice exception applied, and so the Court considered whether the actual 

innocence exception applied to excuse the procedural default. The Court discussed the 

contours of the actual-innocence exception and its application in the Supreme Court 

and other Circuits. The Court concluded as follows: 

With these principles in mind, we face the question of whether the actual 

innocence of sentence exception applies to McKay's claim that he was 

erroneously sentenced as a career offender because one of his prior 

convictions does not qualify as a "crime of violence." To answer this 

question, we need not enter the debate regarding whether the actual 

innocence exception extends to the noncapital sentencing context. Even 

assuming that this exception does extend beyond the capital sentencing 

context, it still does not apply to McKay because his claim is one of legal, 

rather than factual, innocence and thus fails to fall within the actual 

innocence exception's purview .... We thus decline to extend the actual 

innocence of sentence exception to claims of legal innocence of a 

predicate offense justifying an enhanced sentence. In so doing, we heed 

the Supreme Court's instruction to exercise restraint in expanding the 

procedural default rule's exceptions. We also keep the actual innocence 

exception narrow, and ensure that this exception remains 'rare' and is only 

applied in the 'extraordinary case: 

Id. at 1198 (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998); Sawyer v. 

Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339 (1992». 

The Court finds that McKay controls the outcome of Defendant's sentencing 

claim. Defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted, and he does not argue that the 

cause-and-prejudice exception applies to excuse the default. Defendant contends that 

he is actually innocent of his career offender sentence because the Florida offense of 

BOlEO is not a crime of violence for ACCA sentencing purposes, but the actual 

Case No: 1:9B-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 7 of 10 

Page 70f10 

innocence exception does not extend to such claims of legal innocence of a predicate 

offense justifying an enhanced sentence. Id. 

(2) Merits 

Even if Defendant's sentencing claim was not procedurally defaulted, the Court 

finds that he is not entitled to relief on the merits of the claim. The Eleventh Circuit has 

addressed what information the sentencing court may consider in determining whether 

a BOlEO conviction qualifies a defendant for enhanced sentencing. In United States v. 

Corles, 2011 Wl 2079401 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished), the Court affirmed an 

enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G. Chapter 2 for which one of the qualifying offenses 

was BOlEO, explaining as follows: 

Generally, when determining whether a prior conviction is a qualifying 

offense for purposes of a sentencing enhancement, we use a modified 

categorical approach, looking at the fact of the conviction, the statutory 

definition of the prior offense, and, if the statute encompasses conduct 

falling both inside and outside the enhancement, certain 

Shepard-approved documents, such as the charging document, written 

plea agreement, transcript of the plea colloquy and explicit findings of fact. 

United States V. Rainer, 616 F.3d 1212,1215 (11th Cir.2010) (involving 

ACCA enhancement), cerl. denied, - U.S. --,131 S.Ct. 968,178 

L.Ed.2d 796 (2011); United States V. Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d 1317, 

1327-29 (11th Cir.201 0) (involving sixteen-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. 

§ 2l1.2(b)(1 )(A)(ii)); see also Shepard V. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 

125 S.Ct. 1254, 1257, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). 

[T]his Court concluded that, when applying the categorical 

approach, "the fact of a conviction for felony battery on a law enforcement 

officer in Florida, standing alone, no longer satisfies the 'crime of violence' 

enhancement criteria" of physical force. United States V. Williams, 609 

F.3d 1168, 1169-70 (11th Cir.2010). The Williams court explained that 

under Florida's battery statute, a person could commit a battery by either 

actually and intentionally touching someone or by intentionally causing 

bodily harm to someone. Id. at 1170. The Williams court concluded that 

there was "no evidence in the record, that we may consider under 

[Shepard] to clarify under which of these provisions Williams was 

convicted." Id. Williams relied upon Johnson V. United States, 559 U.S. 

Case No: 1:9B-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 8 of 10 

Page 80f10 

--,130 S.Ct. 1265, 1271, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), which concluded that 

the phrase "physical force" in the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(8)(i), 

meant "violent force"-that is, "force capable of causing physical pain or 

injury to another person." Johnson, 559 U.S. at --, 130 S.Ct. at 1271; 

see also Williams, 609 F.3d at 1169. 

Cortes argues that, after Williams and Johnson, his Florida 

convictions for battery on an officer and resisting an officer with violence 

categorically do not qualify as "crimes of violence" for purposes of § 

2L 1.2(b)( 1 )(A). The problem for Cortes is that he did not dispute the facts 

in paragraph 28 of the PSI, which show that Cortes's Florida offenses did 

involve violent force. In fact, it is undisputed that Cortes's offenses 

involved violently shoving an officer and then later punching an officer in 

the chest. 

At sentencing, the district court may rely on facts contained in the 

PSI that are undisputed and deemed admitted. See United States v. 

Bennett, 472 F.3d 825. 832-34 (11th Cir.2006). To the extent Cortes 

argues for the first time on appeal that the facts in paragraph 28 were 

drawn from non- Shepard-approved materials, he has not preserved that 

argument for appellate review. See United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 

1273, 1277 (11th Cir.2007) (explaining that the "failure to object to a 

district court's factual findings [as to the nature of the prior offense] 

precludes the argument that there was error in them"). Therefore, the 

district court did not err in concluding that Cortes's Florida withheld 

adjudications for two counts of battery on an officer and one count of 

resisting an officer with violence were "crimes of violence" within the 

meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)(1)(A). 

Cortes, 2011 WL 2079401 *3-*4. The Eleventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in 

United States v. Jones, 408 Fed. Appx. 258 (11th Cir. 2011), affirming a career-offender 

sentence predicated on a 80LEO conviction in which the PSR established that the 

Defendant "pushed the officer to the ground by using both hands." The Court 

determined that "because [defendant] did not object to this description, the district court 

could properly consider it to determine which statutory phrase was the basis for his 

conviction." Jones, 408 Fed. Appx. at 261. On the basis of the description of the facts 

in the PSR, the Court concluded that "the district court did not plainly err in finding that 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11/09/11 Page 9 of 10 

Page 9 0(10 

Jones was convicted of intentionally striking a law enforcement officer and that a 

conviction under that portion of the statute necessarily involves the use of substantial 

physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury." Id. at 261-62 (citing Johnson, 

130 S.Ct. at 1270-71). 

In this case, Defendant concedes that the facts contained in his PSR - which 

were undisputed and therefore deemed admitted - reflect the following regarding his 

BOlEO conviction: 

On July 31, 1995, a correctional officer at the levy County Jail observed 

Mongo in a shower at the levy County Jail, smoking what appeared to be 

a marijuana cigarette. When the correctional officer approached Mongo, 

Mongo attempted to throw the alleged marijuana cigarette away. The 

defendant also pushed the correctional officer and a scuffle ensued. 

PSR,-r 33. 

These facts support a conclusion that Defendant's BOlEO offense did involve 

the use of violent force, and that the sentencing court properly concluded that the 

offense qualified Defendant for ACCA sentencing. See Jones, 408 Fed. Appx. at 261­

62; Cortes, 2011 Wl 2079401 *3-*4. 

Further, as the Government argues, Defendant's unobjected-to PSR reflects that 

Defendant had at least three prior controlled-substance convictions for sale of cocaine 

"committed on occasions different from one another" that would have qualified him for 

ACCA sentencing, in addition to the offenses referenced in the Superseding Indictment. 

See Doc. 15; PSR,-r,-r 18, 25-31; 18 U.S.C § 924(e). Defendant argues that such other 

convictions cannot support the enhancement because they were not referenced in the 

superceding indictment. The government, however, was not required to do so because 

§ 924(e) is mandatory and the qualifying offenses do not need to be charged in the 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 55 Filed 11109/11 Page 10 of 10 

Page 100(10 

indictment. See United States v. Gibson, 64 F.3d 617, 625-26 (11th Cir. 1995); United 

States v. Cobia,41 F.3d 1473, 1475-76 (11 th Cir. 1995). Defendant has not met his 

burden of showing that the offenses identified in the PSR were not separate convictions 

such that he would be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. 

Conclusion 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That the motion for correction of sentence, Doc. 29, and motion to vacate, Doc. 

39, be DENIED and that a certificate of appealability be DENIED. 

IN CHAMBERS this 9th day of November 2011. 

61f1aw ([5){:lp1o/1etJ 

GARY R. JONES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

A party may file specific. written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and 

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being 

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of 

proposed factual findings and recommendations. 

Case No: 1:98-cr-05-MP -GRJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 01/03/12 Page 10 of 10