Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190815_0001238.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-16 01:32:27
Document Index: 664088373

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 4', '§ 28', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 28', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2255', '§ 4', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255']

FindACase™ | Cramer v. Werlich
Cramer v. Werlich
TROY CRAMER, #16783-047, Petitioner,
Petitioner Troy Cramer, an inmate in the Bureau of Prisons, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 12, 2018. (Doc. 1). Cramer was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment in 2013 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. United States v. Troy Cramer, No. 13-cr-3011-JMG-CRZ, Doc. 36 (D. Neb. Aug. 19, 2013). His Guidelines range was enhanced after he was found to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, based on a prior federal controlled substance conviction and a Nebraska state conviction for terroristic threats. Id. at Doc. 78, p. 2.
Cramer now invokes Mathis v. United States, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) to challenge his designation as a career offender based on the Nebraska conviction and contends he is entitled to be resentenced without that designation. Specifically, Cramer argues that this prior conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.01 (1986) does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines because it does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force again the person of another. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-7).
Respondent opposes issuance of the Writ on multiple grounds: First, that Cramer waived his collateral challenge rights as part of his plea agreement, which forecloses his Petition (Doc. 8, pp. 5-6); Second, that Cramer's sentence cannot be deemed a “miscarriage of justice” under § 2255(e)'s savings clause, as it fell within the statutory maximum penalty for his crime of conviction regardless of his career offender designation (Id. at pp. 6-9); and Finally, that Cramer's Nebraska terroristic threats conviction meets the Sentencing Guidelines' definition of “crime of violence” because the threatened use of physical force is an essential element of the statute-thus his claim fails on the merits. (Id. at pp. 8-10). Cramer filed a reply (Doc. 10) and filed a supplemental pleading with additional authority (Doc. 11).
This matter is now ripe for resolution. For the reasons discussed below, Cramer's § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) will be DENIED.
On May 22, 2013, Cramer pleaded guilty to one Count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). United States v. Troy Cramer, No. 13-cr-3011-JMG-CRZ, Doc. 22 (D. Neb. May 22, 2013). Cramer entered into a formal Plea Agreement in which he agreed that he “knowingly and expressly waive[d] any and all rights to contest [his] . . . sentence in any post-conviction proceedings, including any proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . . . .” Id. at Doc. 25, pp. 6-7.[1] While neither party has provided the Presentence Report (“PSR”) to the Court, there is no dispute that Cramer was determined to be a career offender under the Guidelines by the sentencing court, in part due to his prior Nebraska conviction for terroristic threats under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.01 (1986). (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 4-7; Doc. 2, p. 3).[2] Cramer's statutory sentencing range included a minimum of ten years (120 months) imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). After the career offender designation was applied, Cramer was sentenced at the low end of the Guidelines range to 262 months imprisonment on August 19, 2013. Cramer, No. 13-cr-3011-JMG-CRZ, Doc. 36 (D. Neb. Aug. 19, 2013); see also id. at Doc. 78.
Cramer did not file a direct appeal. He did, however, file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District of Nebraska. He argued, as he does here, that his prior conviction for terroristic threats under Nebraska law should not have been used to enhance his sentence under the Guidelines. Id. at Doc. 66. His argument was premised on Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) instead of Mathis, and he argued that his career offender designation was made pursuant to the Guidelines' “residual clause” instead of its “elements clause.” Id.; compare U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) with § 4B1.2(a)(2). The § 2255 motion was denied after citation to Cramer's plea waiver as well as a discussion of the merits of his motion. Id. at Doc. 78.[3] The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, Cramer v. United States, 700 Fed.Appx. 562 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) and denied Cramer's Petition for Rehearing en banc. United States v. Cramer, No. 13-cr-3011-JMG-CRZ, Doc. 88 (D. Neb. Dec. 19, 2017).
In light of Mathis, Cramer argues he was improperly designated as a career offender because his prior Nebraska conviction does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, which is necessary to be considered a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines' elements clause. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-7); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). Before reaching the merits of this argument, the Court must first consider whether Cramer's claim can be brought within the narrow scope of § 2255's savings clause. The Court agrees with Respondent that Cramer cannot demonstrate the existence of a fundamental defect in his conviction or sentence that is grave enough to be deemed a miscarriage of justice, thus he cannot satisfy the requirements of § 2255(e)'s savings clause to bring his Mathis claim in a § 2241 petition.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Some errors can be raised on direct appeal but not in a collateral attack by a &sect; 2255 motion or a &sect; 2241 petition. A claim that a defendant&#39;s Guidelines sentencing range was erroneously calculated is one such claim. Hawkins v. United States, 706 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2013), supplemented on denial of rehearing, 724 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Coleman, 763 F.3d 706, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2014) (&ldquo;[W]e held in Hawkins that the error in calculating the Guidelines range did not constitute a miscarriage of justice for § 2255 purposes given the advisory ...