From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Haynes

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
Jul 7, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV210-184 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 7, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV210-184.

July 7, 2011


ORDER


After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Petitioner Terry Taylor ("Taylor") states that his claim is that without the enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. He asserts that his claim is not based on a misapplication of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Taylor then cites the dissenting opinion in Gilbert v. United States, No. 09-12513, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1885674 (11th Cir. May 19, 2011), to support his assertion that, because he is not a career criminal, he is not precluded from seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Despite Taylor's assertions to the contrary, he is an armed career criminal, and he was sentenced as such. To that end, the majority opinion in Gilbert, which is binding on this Court, does not provide Taylor with his requested relief. In fact, Gilbert forecloses Taylor's § 2241 petition, as the Magistrate Judge discussed in his Report.

Taylor's Objections are overruled. Taylor's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

SO ORDERED, this 6 day of July, 2011.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Haynes

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
Jul 7, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV210-184 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Taylor v. Haynes

Case Details

Full title:TERRY N. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY HAYNES, Warden, and UNITED STATES…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

Date published: Jul 7, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV210-184 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 7, 2011)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Flournoy

This Court once again determined Taylor did not satisfy Section 2255's savings clause and dismissed his…