Opinion
Criminal Action No. 3:13CV525
10-06-2014
JELTRESS CHENICO WILLIAMSON, Petitioner, v. ERIC WILSON, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeltress Chenico Williamson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ("Sentencing Court") convicted Williamson of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a trafficking crime and sentenced him to 232 months of imprisonment. United States v. Williamson, No. 1:98-cr-00190-JAB-1, ECF No. 19, (W.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 1998). In his § 2241 Petition, Williamson asserts that, "[t]he § 851 notice in this case was used to activate the increased penalties under 21 USCS § 841(b)(1)(A) - § 4B1.1. Petitioner is now being held for a non-existent offense. Alleyne[] has narrowed the scope of the punishment the Petitioner is exposed to." (§ 2241 Pet. 7.) Essentially, Williamson contends the enhanced sentence he received as a result of the application of 21 U.S.C. § 851 and the career offender enhancement under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutional in light of the decision in Alleyne. For the reasons set forth below, the action will be DISMISSED for WANT OF JURISDICTION.
That statute provides, in pertinent part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1)-(3).
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States . . . .
In Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the Supreme Court addressed a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. 2155-56. The Supreme Court held that, other than prior convictions, "facts that increase [statutory] mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury." Id. at 2163.
The Court employs the pagination assigned to Williamson's § 2241 Petition by the CM/ECF docketing system.
A. Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Compared to Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack on the imposition of a federal conviction and sentence and must be filed with the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusnff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). A federal inmate may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless he or she demonstrates that the remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). For example, "attacks on the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241 petition." In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); Hanahan v. Luther, 693 F.2d 629, 632 n.1 (7th Cir. 1982)). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision or because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion." Id. (citations omitted).
"This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed by § 2255." Wilson v. Wilson, No. 1:11cv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 WL 1245671, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000)).
--------
The Fourth Circuit has stressed that an inmate may proceed under § 2241 to challenge his conviction "in only very limited circumstances." United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The "controlling test," id., in the Fourth Circuit is as follows:
[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit formulated this test to provide a remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a situation in which an individual is incarcerated for conduct that is not criminal but, through no fault of his [or her] own, [he or she] has no source of redress." Id. at 333 n.3 (emphasis added).
B. Analysis of Williamson's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Williamson fails to satisfy the second prong of In re Jones. See id. at 334. Specifically, Williamson fails to demonstrate that "the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which [he] was convicted is deemed not to be criminal." Id. (emphasis added). The conduct of which Williamson stands convicted, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a trafficking crime, remains a crime. See Mabry v. Wilson, --- F. App'x ----, No. 14-6430, 2014 WL 3766729, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014) (concluding the decision in Alleyne fails to provide a basis seeking relief under § 2241); Alsop v. Chandler, 551 F. App'x 217, 218-19 (5th Cir. 2014) (concluding the decision in Alleyne fails to provide a basis for challenging convictions for distribution of cocaine base and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base under § 2241). Moreover, "Fourth Circuit precedent has . . . not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence." Poole, 531 F.3d at 267 n.7 (citing In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34). Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS Williamson's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for want of jurisdiction.
An appropriate Order shall issue. Date: 10-6-14
Richmond, Virginia
/s/_________
James R. Spencer
Senior U. S. District Judge