Core v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 25 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | ACTION NO. 2:15cv373 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER LEE CORE, #23782-057, Petitioner, v. ERIC D. WILSON, Respondent. |
Christopher Lee Core ("Core") filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Core is a federal prisoner convicted before the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, who was previously incarcerated at FCC Petersburg Medium in Petersburg, Virginia.1 Core challenges the sentence he received in the Middle District of North Carolina based on the Fourth Circuit's holding in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011). For the reasons discussed below, and pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Civil Rule 72, it is hereby recommended that Core's section 2241 petition be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
On December 3, 2007, Core entered a plea of guilty in the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to count four of an indictment charging distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2007). When Core pled guilty, first-time offenders were subject to a minimum period of incarceration of five years and a maximum period of incarceration of forty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2007). Offenders who had previously been convicted of a "felony drug offense" were subject to an enhanced penalty of a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life. Id.; see also 21 U.S.C. § 802(44) (2007).
Before Core pled guilty, the government filed an information giving notice that Core previously was convicted, on December 31, 2002, for possessing with intent to sell and deliver cocaine in violation of North Carolina General Statute 90-95(A). United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321, Information (ECF No. 10) (M.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2007). This subjected Core to an enhanced penalty, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), of a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life in prison. See United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321, Gvt. Motion (ECF No. 51) ( . Further, based on two prior convictions for controlled substance offenses, Core was classified in his presentence report as a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines.2 Id. at 1. As a result, Core was assigned a total offense level of 34(37 minus 3 points for acceptance of responsibility), a criminal history category VI, and a guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months. Id. Core was sentenced on August 17, 2009 to 262 months in prison. United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321, Judgment at 2 (ECF No. 21) (M.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 2009).3
On August 17, 2011, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), holding that, in order for a prior felony conviction to trigger a sentence enhancement under the Controlled Substances Act, the defendant must have been previously convicted of an offense "punishable by more than one year's imprisonment" based on his own criminal history and any aggravating factors alleged at the time of his sentencing. 649 F.3d 237, 244 (4th Cir. 2011). On August 16, 2012, Core filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321 (ECF No. 39) (M.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2012). Core challenged his sentence and asserted that, under Simmons, his earlier drug convictions were not "felony drug offenses" triggering a sentence enhancement. Id., Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. Section 2255 Petition 2 (ECF No. 40) (M.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2012). Although the government's response concurred in Core's assessment of Simmons, the United States moved to dismiss the section 2255 motion as untimely and as falling outside the scope of review under section 2255. United States v. Core, No. 1:07cr321 (ECF No. 51) ( . On November 25, 2013, thesection 2255 motion was placed in abeyance pending resolution of United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015).4 Core's section 2255 motion is still pending in the Middle District of North Carolina.
After filing his section 2255 motion, and while he was housed in Petersburg, Virginia, Core filed the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court on August 24, 2015, with a memorandum in support. Pet., ECF No. 1 at 1-9; Pet'r's Mem., ECF No. 1 at 10-20. Respondent filed a response to the petition on February 3, 2016, asserting the petition should be denied for lack of jurisdiction because Core failed to show that section 2255 relief is inadequate or ineffective under the savings clause. ECF No. 12. On February 4, 2016, respondent filed a supplemental response arguing that, based on Core's transfer to a detention facility in Burner, North Carolina, the Court also lacks jurisdiction because Core is no longer confined in the Eastern District of Virginia. ECF No. 13. Core filed a reply to the response and supplemental response on February 22, 2016. ECF No. 15.
Core alleges that the sentencing court incorrectly classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions that were not punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, and that, as a result of the holding in Simmons, he is actually innocent. Pet'r's Mem. 7, ECF No. 1 at 16. Core further argues that his claim can proceed as a section 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause of section 2255, and that equitable tolling shouldapply. Pet'r's Mem. 4, 8, ECF No. 1 at 13, 17. Core requests that his sentence be vacated, and that his case be remanded for resentencing. Pet. 9, ECF No. 1 at 8.
The Court must first address whether it has jurisdiction over Core's petition. Respondent argues in the supplemental response that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition because Core is no longer confined in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Court lacks authority over the warden in Butner, North Carolina. Suppl. Resp., ECF No. 13. Core notified the Court, on November 19, 2015, that he had been transferred from Petersburg, Virginia to a correctional institution in Burner, North Carolina. ECF No. 7. It is well established, however, that jurisdiction is determined when the petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed, and is not defeated by a subsequent transfer of the petitioner. See United States v. Edwards, 27 F.3d 564, 1994 WL 285462 (4th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (unpublished) () (citing Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Jackson v. Brennan, 924 F.2d 725, 727 n.2 (7th Cir. 1991); Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985); Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692-93 (8th Cir. 1981); McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1978); Solorzano-Cisneros v. Zych, No. 7:12-CV-00537, 2013 WL 1821614, at *1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2013); Chaney v. O'Brien, 2007 WL 1189641, at * 1 (W.D. Va. 2007).
The Fourth Circuit addressed this issue in United States v. Edwards, 27 F.3d at 564. While Edwards was confined in South Carolina, he filed a section 2255 petition in the District of South Carolina attacking a decision by the parole commission. Id. Edwards was subsequently transferred to Butner, North Carolina. Id. The district court denied Edwards' motion to converthis section 2255 petition to a section 2241 petition, finding that it had no personal jurisdiction over the respondent warden in North Carolina. Id. Because Edwards' transfer did not defeat personal jurisdiction, which attached at the time of filing, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in deciding that it had no personal jurisdiction over the respondent warden in North Carolina. Id. Similarly, since Core's petition was properly filed in the Eastern District of Virginia when he was confined in Petersburg, Virginia, his subsequent transfer to North Carolina does not defeat jurisdiction over Core's petition.
While Core's transfer to North Carolina does not defeat jurisdiction in this case, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Core's petition because it was not properly brought pursuant to section 2241. Because Core is challenging the validity of his sentence and not its execution, the proper vehicle for his challenge is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the district that imposed the sentence. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997) (). Although 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has a "savings clause" allowing a prisoner to file a claim for relief under section 2241 in limited circumstances, Core does not meet the requirements of this exception. A federal prisoner may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proves "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of . . . detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The savings clause is only available "in a limited number of circumstances," and it is "beyond question that [section] 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual is unable to obtain relief under that provision," In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000), or "because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a [section] 2255 motion," Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194. Fourth Circuit precedent establishes that a section 2255 motion is inadequate andineffective to test the legality of...
To continue reading
Request your trial