Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150512_0001031.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 02:56:11
Document Index: 418005555

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2113', '§ 2119', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

| Perez-Carrera v. Stancil
JOSE PEREZ-CARRERA, Applicant,v.M. A. STANCIL, Warden, Respondent.
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Applicant Jose Perez-Carrera is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. Applicant, acting pro se, initiated this action on March 5, 2015, by filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher reviewed the Application and found as follows.
Applicant asserts that he pled guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and (e), and 2; one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(3) and 2; one count of possession of two semi-automatic assault weapons in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(v)(1), 924(a)(1)(B) and 2; two counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and (3), and 2. Applicant further asserts that he was sentenced to a total of 653 months of incarceration.
Applicant asserts that he was foreclosed by circuit and Supreme Court precedence from challenging the errors in his sentence at the time of his sentencing, direct appeal, and collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Applicant contends that he lacked the opportunity to obtain relief based on the decisions in Persuad v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1023 (2014), and Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). He further asserts that he also is foreclosed from challenging the errors in his sentence by filing a successive § 2255 motion because he is not relying on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law as required under § 2255(8), [Footnote omitted] but pursuant to Persuad a “sentence imposed above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on a legal error is a fundamental defect redressable under the savings clause.” Application, ECF No. 1, at 3.
The Court has reviewed the docket in United States v. Jose R. Perez-Carrera, No. 96-cr-00039-SEC-2 (D. P.R. May 27, 1998), Applicant’s criminal case at issue in this action. The docket confirms he pled guilty to the counts noted above, id. at ECF No. 139, and 140, and was sentenced to a total of 653 months, id. at ECF No. 236. Applicant filed a direct appeal, which resulted in a reduction of sentence in count two from ten to five years, but did not affect the total aggregate sentence. See United States v. Perez-Carrera, No. 98-1788 (1st Cir. Mar. 15, 2001).
Applicant then filed a § 2255 motion on June 21, 2002, see Perez-Carrera v. United States, No. 02-cv-01963-SEC (D. P.R. Nov. 25, 2003), which was denied on November 25, 2003, id. at ECF No. 18, and dismissed on appeal as untimely, see Perez-Carrera v. United States, No. 15-1952 (1st Cir. Sept. 28, 2005). Applicant also filed an appeal of the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in Case No. 02-cv-01963-SEC, which was dismissed, Perez-Carrera, No. 10-1774 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2011). Applicant continued to file motions to reconsider in Case No. 02-cv-01963-SEC, which were denied as an attack of the underlying conviction and found to be successive § 2255 motions that lacked authorization by the First Circuit. Perez-Carrera, No. 02-cv-01963 at ECF No. 121.
Applicant then filed a second § 2255 motion that was denied as successive. Perez-Carrera v. United States, No. 12-cv-01716-SEC (D. P.R. Jan. 8, 2014). Applicant raised the Alleyne issue in this § 2255 motion, but the court found Alleyne did not “carry the day for the petitioner, ” because it is not applied retroactively. Id., ECF No. 32 at 4.
The purposes of an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are distinct and well established. “A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity” and “[a] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention.” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). A habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 “is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy, to the relief afforded by motion in the sentencing court under § 2255.” Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963) (per curiam). Instead, “[t]he exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, is that provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th Cir. 1965); see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
That Applicant sought and was denied relief in a § 2255 motion does not demonstrate that the remedy was inadequate or ineffective. See Williams, 323 F.2d at 673. Furthermore, even if Applicant is barred from raising his claims in a second or successive motion pursuant to § 2255, the remedy provided in § 2255 still is not inadequate or ineffective. See Caravalho, 177 F.3d at 1179. Applicant fails to demonstrate the remedy available pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing court is inadequate or ineffective under the Prost test.
Furthermore, Persaud does not provide jurisdiction for this Application. The Supreme Court did not issue a substantive decision in Persaud. The Court granted certiorari, vacated a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanded for further consideration in light of the Solicitor General’s brief. Persaud, 134 S.Ct. at 1023. Persuad, therefore is of no assistance to Applicant.
ECF No. 6 at 1-4.
Magistrate Judge Gallagher directed Applicant to show cause why this action should not be dismissed because he has an adequate and effective remedy pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing court. Applicant filed a Response on May 5, 2015.
The Court must construe the Application and Response liberally because Applicant is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court cannot act ...