Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180723_0001553.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:22:06+00:00

Document:
Petitioner Kevin Lee Grady is currently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary located at Marion, Illinois (“USP-Marion”). He brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Grady challenges his conviction and sentence for bank fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements to a federal official in United States v. Grady, No. 11-cr-00131-RJJ-2 (W.D. Mi.) (“criminal case”). He asks this Court to vacate his sentence on jurisdictional and due process grounds. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6, 8-25).
Grady argues that the financial institution he was convicted of defrauding did not qualify as a federally insured “financial institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 20 until the legal definition of “financial institution” changed several years after he did business with the institution. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-25). Further, a misunderstanding about which institution he used resulted in his wrongful conviction. Id.
This is not the first time that Grady has brought this challenge to his conviction and sentence. He has already pursued this claim unsuccessfully on three or more prior occasions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and in related appeals. Grady is foreclosed from doing so again here, based on his new understanding of subject matter jurisdiction and due process.
As Grady has previously been advised, § 2241 is not a vehicle for appealing an adverse decision on a § 2255 motion or a § 2241 petition. It certainly is not an appropriate vehicle for appealing an unfavorable decision from the Court of Appeals. Grady nevertheless returns to this Court seeking relief under § 2241 based on the same arguments that have already been rejected.
The § 2241 Petition shall be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Grady is WARNED that he will be subject to sanctions for any future attempts to reassert foreclosed or frivolous claims in a federal habeas petition in this District.
Grady was the leader of a complex scheme aimed at defrauding numerous banks of millions of dollars in connection with mortgage loans. He was found guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements to a federal official following a nine-day jury trial that began on February 7, 2012. See United States v. Grady, No. 11-cr-00131-RJJ-2 (W.D. Mi. 2012) (“criminal case”). Grady was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment, 4 years of supervised release, and $3, 086, 195.06 in restitution. (Doc. 174, criminal case). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Grady, App. No. 12-1788 (6th Cir. July 31, 2013).
Mr. Grady's claims, many of which overlap, fall into four general categories: (1) challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) challenges to his convictions and restitution based on his lenders' sale of loans on the secondary market; (3) challenges to his conviction for bank fraud (Count 20) based on his assertion that Key Bank, N.A., was not a “financial institution” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 20.5; (4) challenges based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for (i) failing to investigate the charges against him adequately; (ii) failing to present evidence and argue at trial that Mr. Grady was not guilty of wire fraud because the fraudulent loans had been sold on the secondary market; (iii) failing to present at trial evidence that Key Bank, N.A. was not a “financial institution” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 20; and (iv) failing to challenge the evidentiary value of certain of the appraisals the government introduced in support of its extensive case.
(Doc. 18, pp. 3-4, § 2255 Motion) (emphasis added). The § 2255 Motion was denied in all respects. Id. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability. Grady v. United States, No. 14-2568 (6th Cir. June 19, 2015).
Grady sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this District on March 17, 2016. Grady v. Baird, No. 16-cv-00285-DRH (S.D. Ill. 2016) (§ 2241 Petition). In the § 2241 Petition, he reasserted all of the same claims that were unsuccessful in his initial § 2255 Motion. (Doc. 1, § 2241 Petition). This Court dismissed the § 2241 Petition with prejudice. (Doc. 6, § 2241 Petition). Grady appealed the decision, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decision, stating: “[A]s the district court held, a § 2241 action cannot function as an appeal of another court's decision. Grady did not show that § 2255 is inadequate to remedy his claims.” Grady v. Baird, App. No. 16-2163 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (Doc. 19-1, § 2241 Petition).
Grady subsequently filed three applications for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion on April 10, 2017, November 20, 2017, and April 9, 2018, respectively. (Docs. 24-26, § 2255 Motion). The Sixth Circuit denied all three applications. Id. The instant § 2241 Petition-Grady's second-followed.

References: § 2241
 v. 
 § 20
 § 2255
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2255
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2241
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 § 20
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2255
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2241