Barnes v. Bragg

3 Citing cases

  1. Barnes v. Bragg

    No. 16-7263 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Bragg, No. 8:15-cv-02842-HMH (D.S.C. July 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

  2. Barnes v. Bragg

    C.A. No. 8:18-1414-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2019)

    United States v. Barnes, No. 12-7853, 2013 WL 518643 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished). Barnes filed his first § 2241 petition on July 16, 2015, which was denied on July 28, 2016. Barnes v. Bragg, C.A. No. 8:15-2842-HMH-JDA, 2016 WL 4040295 (D.S.C. July 28, 2016), aff'd 696 Fed. App'x 629 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished). Barnes filed the instant § 2241 petition on May 24, 2018. (§ 2241 Pet., generally, ECF No. 1.) Barnes argues that, in light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), he should be resentenced without the career offender enhancement because his prior 2002 North Carolina drug conviction no longer qualifies as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement in § 4B1.1. (Id., ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed his first motion to dismiss on July 19, 2018. (Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 9.

  3. Diaz v. Warden FCI Bennettsville

    C/A No. 4:15-00237-BHH (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The Magistrate Judge based his conclusion upon the reasoning set forth in the first Report where he observed that Petitioner cannot satisfy the second prong of Jones because "[t]he petition makes no allegation that the conduct for which Petitioner was convicted has been deemed non-criminal by any substantive law change." (ECF No. 52 at 6); see e.g. Barnes v. Bragg, C/A No. 8:15-2842-HMH-JDA, 2016 WL 4040295, at *2 (D.S.C. July 28, 2016) (holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the savings clause because "he failed to establish any subsequent change in substantive law such that the conduct of which he was convicted is deemed no longer criminal"); Sullivan v. Warden, SPC-Edgefield, C/A No. 5:16-1211-HMH-KDW, 2016 WL 3162235, at *2 (D.S.C. June 6, 2016) ("[Petitioner] has failed to establish any subsequent change in substantive law such that the conduct of which he was convicted is deemed no longer criminal. Therefore, [Petitioner's] § 2241 petition fails to satisfy the § 2255(e) savings clause."); Williams v. Pettiford, C/A No. 4:08-641-HFF-TER, 2008 WL 4326487, at *6 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2008) ("Petitioner makes no allegation that the law has changed such that the conduct of which he was convicted is no longer criminal.