Opinion
C. A. 5:23-2332-HMH-KDW
09-12-2023
Walter G. Sanders, Jr., Petitioner, v. Warden M. Joseph, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West Florence, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge
Walter G. Sanders, Jr. (“Petitioner”) is a federal inmate housed at FCI Bennettsville, a facility of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On February 19, 2010, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and three counts of distributing crack cocaine. United States v. Sanders, C/A No.: 4:09-cr-40069-JPG-2 (S.D. Ill. June 16, 2010), ECF No. 49. On June 14, 2010, the district court sentenced Petitioner to 300-months imprisonment. Id., ECF No. 396. Petitioner indicates he did not file an appeal or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction or sentence. ECF No. 1-2 at 2-3. On May 27, 2014, the district court reduced Petitioner's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) from 300 months to 240-months imprisonment. Id., ECF No. 829. Petitioner filed the instant Petition on May 30, 2023, seeking a sentence reduction. ECF No. 1.
II. Federal Habeas Issues
Petitioner alleges:
[t]he Illinois Statute that I was convicted under for my drug prior is categorically broader than the Federal law thus could not serve as a predicate felony controlled substance offense. Therefore petitioner is not eligible for the 851 enhancement.
ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Petitioner contends:
The Seventh Circuit held that Illinois drug statute are too broad categorically, the 7th circuit ruled that had I raised the issued in my 404(b) motion I would have given the judge more grounds to give me relief because the 20 year mandatory minimum not applying anymore.Id.(errors in original). Petitioner claims he is now eligible for the 782 Amendment of 2014 and could receive a substantial sentence reduction. Id. Petitioner argues his 852 enhancement no longer applies therefore allowing him to be sentenced below the 20-year mandatory minimum. Id. Petitioner states his guideline range is level 33, category IV, 188 to 235 months. Id. Petitioner contends he is currently five months over his maximum sentence. Id.
“[I]t is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255.” Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997)). A petitioner cannot challenge his federal sentence under § 2241 unless he can satisfy the § 2255 savings clause as follows:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
Here, Petitioner admits he has not filed a § 2255 Motion with the court that sentenced him. See ECF No. 1-2 at 3. As such, Petitioner may not challenge his sentence via a § 2241 Petition. The undersigned recommends this claim be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in the above-captioned matter without prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).