Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170911_0002952.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 11:28:43
Document Index: 778380906

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255']

Federal prisoner Vernon Wilson (“Petitioner”), currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his federal sentencing enhancement. He seeks a declaration that the enhancement was improper and a remand for re-sentencing.
On August 10, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) with the Eastern District of Missouri challenging his sentencing enhancement based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Fields, 863 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. July 20, 2017) (ruling that prior Missouri conviction for second-degree assault was not a “crime of violence” under the federal sentencing guideline providing for an increased base offense level). He states that the motion is currently pending. See Pet., p. 6.
Petitioner dated the instant habeas petition on August 23, 2017 and it was filed by this Court on August 25, 2017. Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because he is actually innocent of a five-point sentencing enhancement for aggravated assault based upon Fields. Petitioner asserts that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because Fields does not fall within an enumerated exception to the one-year period for filing such a motion and asserts that he is actually innocent of the enhanced sentence.
Petitioner brings this action as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. His habeas claim, however, concerns the validity of his federal sentence. A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed with the trial court is the proper avenue for relief on a federal prisoner's claims that his conviction and/or sentence were imposed in violation of the federal constitution or federal law. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); see also McCully v. United States, 60 F. App'x 587, 588 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001)). A federal prisoner may bring a claim challenging his conviction or the imposition of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if it appears that the remedy afforded under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Wooton v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2012). Habeas corpus is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. Charles, 180 F.3d at 758.
The possibility that Petitioner may not be able to satisfy the procedural requirements under § 2255 does not mean that he should be allowed to proceed under § 2241. See Peterman, 249 F.3d at 461 (“The circumstances in which § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective are narrow, for to construe § 2241 relief much more liberally than § 2255 relief would defeat the purpose of the restrictions Congress placed on the filing of successive petitions for collateral relief.”). The remedy afforded under § 2241 is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that allowed by § 2255.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Charles, ...