Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171219_0000414.NWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-11-13 08:07:16
Document Index: 37215466

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 2241', '§ 851', '§ 851', '§ 636', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2241']

S. KALLIS, Warden, Respondent.
JAMES E. SEIBERT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 9, 2017, the pro se Petitioner Warner B. Crider (“Petitioner”) filed an Application for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a federal inmate who is housed at FCI Hazelton and is challenging the validity of his sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On November 2, 2017, the Respondent was directed to file an answer. On November 28, 2017, the Respondent filed a response and a Motion to Transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Michigan. ECF No. 15. In response to the Motion, the Petitioner indicated he declined to join the Motion and wanted his case decided by this Court. ECF No. 19. Accordingly, this matter is pending before the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on the merits of the Petition pursuant to LR PL P 2.
Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury on December 12, 2001, with conspiracy to distribute and distribution of controlled substances. ECF No. 3. A first superseding indictment was entered on December 12, 2002, which further charged Petitioner with three drug offenses, and one felon in possession of ammunition charge. ECF No. 62. On October 24, 2003, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of controlled substances, three drug offenses, and a felon in possession of ammunition charge. ECF No. 115. On March 24, 2004, the Court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of life, life, five years, and ten years. ECF No. 132.
On April 9, 2004, Petitioner, through trial counsel, filed a motion for new trial alleging he was not given proper discovery and evidence which could have been used to impeach the Government's witnesses. ECF No. 130. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the Petitioner's motion as untimely. ECF No. 139. On June 24, 2004, following a hearing on June 18, 2004, the motion to dismiss was granted with the Court noting that even if the motion were timely, none of the claims raised would have warranted a new trial. ECF No. 142.
On April 23, 2004, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, raising several arguments. ECF No. 135. On August 15, 2005, the Sixth Circuit rejected all Petitioner's grounds for appeal but remanded for a Booker re-sentencing, finding that the district court erred when it sentenced Petitioner under a mandatory system of sentencing guidelines. United States v. Booker, 548 U.S. 220, 244 (2005).
On January 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a second motion for a new trial, this time pro se, again alleging Brady violations by the prosecution in withholding evidence, and alleging perjury by witnesses. ECF No. 170; 179. On June 30, 2006 the Court issued an order which denied Petitioner's second motion for a new trial. ECF No. 182. Petitioner appealed that Order on July 13, 2006. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Order on September 17, 2007, again denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial. ECF No. 207.
On May 28, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising 14 fourteen grounds and requesting an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 256. He filed an amended motion on July 29, 2013. ECF No. 259. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for sentence reduction on November 6, 2014. ECF No. 268. On April 20, 2016, the Court granted Petitioner's motion for sentence reduction and re-sentenced him under 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) from life imprisonment to a term of 360 months. On the same date the Court denied Petitioner's 2255 motion. Petitioner filed the instant petition pro se on June 9, 2017.
In support of his § 2241 petition before this Court Petitioner cites Mathis v. United States in arguing that his sentence is improper. Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). Petitioner claims that under Mathis, his previous Michigan drug conviction cannot be used for purposes of 21 U.S.C.§ 851. For relief, he asks that this Court vacate his § 851 aggravated sentence and resentence him according to the new law and with the appropriate guidelines. Petitioner maintains that his arguments coincide with the Government's position in United States v. Surratt, 797 F.3d 3d 240 (2015).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's local rules, the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's case to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2014); see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2014) (a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to § 2254). As a pro se litigant, Petitioner's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). However, even under this less stringent standard, the petition in this case is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). As discussed more fully below, Petitioner clearly is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and therefore, no further response is required of Respondent.