Campbell v. Coakley
| Decision Date | 18 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:16-02058 |
| Parties | DAVID ATREYEL CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. JOE COAKLEY, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
On March 3, 2016, Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (Document No. 1).1 By Standing Order, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for the submission of proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Document No. 2.)
On December 14, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced Petitioner to a 24-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, following his conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). United States v. Campbell, Case No. 5:09-cr-00113 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 14, 2009). Petitioner's term of supervised release commenced on October 17, 2011. Id.,Document 32. United States Probation Officer Jon R. Rapier filed a Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervised Release on September 11, 2012, and the Petition was granted by the District Court on September 12, 2012. Id. On May 30, 2013, the District Court revoked Petitioner's term of supervised release and imposed a term of imprisonment for Id., Document No. 38 and 39.
On February 27, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend or Correct Judgment requesting that the sentence be clarified so that he may receive early release under RDAP. Id., Document No. 43. On June 25, 2015, the District Court denied in part and granted in part Petitioner's Motion. Id., Document No. 44. To the extent Petitioner was requesting that his Judgment be amended, the District Court denied his Motion. Id. To the extent Petitioner was requesting clarification, the District Court granted his motion stating that Petitioner "is not currently incarcerated for any firearms offense." Id. The District Court, however, noted that Petitioner was serving a term of imprisonment based upon the violation of the terms of his supervised release on the 2009 gun charge. Id.
On October 25, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty in the Eastern District of Kentucky to one count of "Conspiracy to Distribute 28 Grams or More of Cocaine Base" in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and one count of "Distribution of Cocaine" in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). United States v. Campbell, Case No. 5:12-cr-00079 , Document No. 245. On May 31, 2013, the District Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of 66 months imprisonment, to be followed by a four-year term of supervised release. Id., Document No. 644. Petitioner didnot appeal his conviction or sentence.
On March 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a Section 3582(c)(2) Motion arguing that he was entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Id., Document No. 1063. By Order entered on May 20, 2015, the District Court denied Petitioner's Section 3582(c)(2) Motion. Id., Document No. 1085. Petitioner filed his Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. Id., Document No. 1091. Subsequently, the United States filed a Motion to Remand. Id., Document No. 1159. In its Motion, the United States conceded that Petitioner was eligible for a Section 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction but requested remand to the District Court for consideration as whether such a reduction was appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. By Order filed on February 22, 2016, the Sixth Circuit granted the United States' Motion for Remand. Id. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 23, 2016, the District Court considered the factors set forth in Section 3553(a) and denied Petitioner's Section 3582 Motion. Id., Document No. 1168. Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal on April 11, 2016. Id., Document No. 1173. Petitioner filed his Appellant Brief on May 18, 2016. United States v. Campbell, Case No. 16-5450 (6th Cir.), Document No. 6. The United States filed their Brief on June 23, 2016, and Petitioner filed his Reply on July 14, 2016. Id., Document Nos. 8 and 9. The appeal is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit.
On March 3, 2016, Petitioner filed his instant Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody. (Document No. 1.) Petitioner argues that he is being improperly denied a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621. (Id.) Petitioner explains that he completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program ["RDAP"], butwas notified by BOP officials that he had been denied early release. (Id., p. 4.) Petitioner contends that the BOP improperly determined that he has a current offense conviction for a firearm. (Id., p. 4 - 7.) Although Petitioner acknowledges that he has a prior Felon in Possession of Firearm conviction, Petitioner contends that his current conviction involves a non-violent drug offense. (Id.) Petitioner explains that on August 16, 2012, he was sentenced to 66-months for one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Base and one count of Distribution of Cocaine. (Id., p. 3.) Petitioner states that on the same day, he was sentenced to 6 months for violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release regarding his Felon in Possession conviction. (Id.) Petitioner acknowledges that this sentence was ordered to run consecutive to his 66-month sentence. (Id.) Petitioner, however, argues that the BOP has improperly denied his "early release by concluding that the [supervised release] violation aggregates the sentence and precludes eligibility because the [supervised release] in which he violated was for felon in possession of a firearm." (Id., p. 5.) Petitioner asserts that since his "sentence for which he was serving [supervised release] predates the instant offense of conviction for drug offenses, it cannot be used under P.S. 5162.05 to preclude early release on the basis of relation to those offenses." (Id.) Finally, Petitioner argues that the BOP "is without discretion in this instant case, according to its own cited policies, to deny early release by using a [supervised release] violation as an aggregate sentence." (Id., pp. 6 - 7.)
As Exhibits, Petitioner attaches the following: (1) A copy of Administrator Ian Connors' Response to Administrative Remedy No. 795055-A1 dated October 13, 2015 (Document No. 1-1.); (2) A copy of Petitioner's "Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal" dated December 21, 2014 (Document No. 1-2.); (3) A copy of Petitioner's "Request for AdministrativeRemedy Informal Resolution Form" dated July 7, 2015 (Document No. 1-3.); (4) A copy of United States District Judge Karen K. Caldwell's "Opinion and Order" as filed on June 25, 2015, in Criminal Action No. 5:09-00113 (Document No. 1-4.); and (5) A copy of Petitioner's "Judgment in a Criminal Case" as filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky in Criminal Action No. 5:12-00079 (Document No. 1-5.).
By Order entered on March 7, 2016, the undersigned ordered that Respondent file an Answer to the allegations contained in the Petitioner's Application and show cause, if any, why the Writ of Habeas Corpus sought by the Petitioner in this case should not be granted. (Document No. 4.) On March 21, 2016, Respondent filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause. (Document No. 7.) Respondent argues that Petitioner's Petition should be denied because "Petitioner is precluded from early release consideration." (Id.)
As Exhibits, Respondent attaches the following: (1) The Declaration of Sharon Wahl (Document No. 7-1, pp. 2 - 3.); (2) A copy of Petitioner's "Judgment in a Criminal Case" regarding Criminal Action No. 5:12-00079 (Id., pp. 5 - 10.); (3) A copy of Petitioner's "Judgment in a Criminal Case" regarding Criminal Action No. 5:09-cr-00113 (Id., pp. 12 - 13.); (4) A copy of Sentry Public Information Inmate Data as of March 16, 2016 (Id., pp. 15 - 20.); (5) A copy of Petitioner's "Request for § 3621(e) Offense Review" (Id., pp. 22 - 23.); and (6) A copy of Administrative Remedy Id No. 795055 (Id., pp. 25 - 34.).
On May 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Enforce Order." (Document No. 8.) In his Motion, Petitioner requested that this Court compel Respondent to respond to the Court's "Order to Show Cause" entered on May 7, 2016 (Document No. 4). (Id.) Petitioner stated that "Respondent has failed to comply with this Court's order, and has not filed for an extension oftime to file its reply." (Id.) By Order entered on May 10, 2016, the undersigned noted that Respondent had filed a Response to Petitioner's Petition and denied Petitioner's "Motion to Enforce Order." (Document No. 9.) The undersigned further ordered the Clerk to send Petitioner a copy of Respondent's "Response to Order to Show Cause" and directed Petitioner to file any Reply to Respondent's Response by June 10, 2016. (Id.) Petitioner has failed to file a Reply.
Petitioner asserts that the BOP erred by considering his firearm conviction when determining whether he qualified for early release under the RDAP. (Document No. 1.) First, Petitioner contends that the BOP erred in considering his firearms conviction because his supervised release violation is separate from his original conviction (felon in possession of a firearm). Second, Petitioner contends that his firearms conviction is a prior conviction because he is currently in custody based upon non-violent drug convictions.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), authorizes the BOP to...
To continue reading
Request your trial