Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190924_0001841.WLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 00:06:34
Document Index: 630498127

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 851', '§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 2241', '§ 2255']

FindACase™ | Roberts v. Willis
JEREMY RAY ROBERTS REG. # 10714-003
Before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Jeremy Ray Roberts (Roberts) who is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute at Oakdale, Louisiana. This matter is before us for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.
On June 25, 2009, Roberts was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on one count of conspiracy to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), one count of attempt to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), three counts of possession of a List I Chemical with knowledge and reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. United States v. Roberts, No. 1:09-cr-0140, doc. 1 (S.D. Ala. June 25, 2009). On July 15, 2009, the government filed Information to Establish Prior Conviction with the intent to seek enhanced penalties pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. Id. at doc. 10. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Roberts was convicted of count one, conspiracy to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Id. at docs. 34. A sentencing hearing was held on May 20, 2010, at which Roberts was sentenced to a 216 month term of imprisonment. Id. at doc. 97.
Roberts appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which considered appellate counsel's Anders brief[1]. It then denied relief and granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. United States v. Roberts, 413 Fed. App'x 222 (11th Cir. 2011). Roberts did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and instead pursued relief through post-conviction motions in the trial court.
Roberts filed a pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on July 14, 2017, asserting that his sentence was excessive and seeking to have it modified based upon the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2007) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015). United States v. Roberts, No. 1:09-cr-140-001, doc. 127 (S.D. Ala. July 24, 2017). Plaintiff was ordered to re-file his petition on the form required by the court. Id. at doc. 128. He failed to do so, and, accordingly, his motion was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's order. Id. at doc. 133. He has also filed in his original proceeding a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, based on subsequent amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. . Id. at doc. 135. That motion is currently pending Roberts now brings the instant petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that he is entitled to relief under § 2255's savings clause based on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), and United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2013), and their impacts on sentencing enhancements he received based on prior convictions. Doc. 1, att. 2, p. 12.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Roberts alleges an error at sentencing. Such attacks are generally limited to a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). A &sect; 2241 petition is properly construed as a &sect; 2255 motion if it seeks relief based on errors that occurred at trial or sentencing. Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877-78. Habeas relief based on a collateral attack to a ...