Henriques v. Hollingsworth
| Decision Date | 12 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 14-1242 (NLH) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | PHILIP HENRIQUES, Petitioner, v. JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Respondent. |
APPEARANCES
Philip Henriques, #17133-050
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
Petitioner, prose
Petitioner Phillip Henriques, a prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has submitted a Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his sentence. Petitioner names as party respondent, Warden Jordan Hollingsworth, as the person having custody over him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Because it appears from a review of the Petition that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
The procedural history of this case is taken from the record in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, United States v. Phillip Henriques, Crim. No. 93-cr-0089 (MOC) filed in the Western District of North Carolina. On May 3, 1993, Petitioner was named in a three-count Bill of Indictment. Such Indictment charged that Petitioner had conspired to possess with intent to distribute quantities of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846 (Count One); and that he had used and carried firearms during and in relation to his drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Counts Two and Three). After pleading not guilty, Petitioner's case proceeded to trial in the Western District of North Carolina.
However, on December 7, 1993 — the first day of his trial — Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the government, whereby he agreed to plead guilty to all of the charges in the Indictment. The parties' agreement further stipulated that the amounts of heroin and cocaine which could be attributed to the petitioner would be converted to marijuana for ease of calculating his sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of the parties' agreement, Petitioner appeared before the Court and tendered his guilty pleas. After engaging Petitioner in its standard Plea & Rule 11 colloquy, the court was satisfied that Petitioner'spleas were knowingly and voluntarily tendered. Therefore, the court accepted Petitioner's guilty pleas.
On July 7, 1994, Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of 312 months imprisonment (252 months on Count One, and a total of 60 months consecutive on Counts Two and Three). See Judgment, No. 93-cr-0089, United States v. Henriques (W.D.N.C. July 7, 1994) ECF No. 83. Petitioner did not appeal.
On April 18, 1997, Petitioner filed his first Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The substance of that Motion is largely unknown. The Government opposed on all claims of the Motion, except Petitioner's claim that his conviction on the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts were improper in light of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). The Government moved to dismiss the convictions, but argued that the Petitioner should be resentenced pursuant to United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir. 1997). On October 23, 1997, the district court granted the government's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's firearms convictions (Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment) and re-opened the proceedings for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the § 2D1.1 enhancement should be applied. The district court found that the enhancement should be applied and an Amended Judgment was entered on June 4, 1998 whereby Petitioner was resentenced to 300 months imprisonment.
In the meantime, on May 4, 1998, the court entered an Order denying the remaining claims set forth in the § 2255 petition. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on June 9, 1998 challenging the district court's denial of his § 2255 petition. On September 18, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's opinion and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Henriques, 161 F.2d 4 (4th Cir. 1998).
Petitioner also appealed the June 4, 1998 Amended Judgment and challenged the district court's application of the § 2D1.1 enhancement at resentencing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that there was sufficient evidence to find that the enhancement was applicable. Accordingly, on December 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence of 300 months imprisonment. See United States v. Henriques, 468 F.2d 484 (4th Cir. 1998).
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530, 466 (2000), Petitioner went to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on a Motion for Authority to File a Successive Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The Motion was denied by the appellate court. Order of FCCA, No. 93-cr-0089, United States v. Henriques (W.D.N.C. July 23, 2001) ECF No. 117. Nevertheless, Petitioner returned to the district court on January 19, 2006 and filed a second Motion to Vacateunder § 2255, raising four separate challenges to his 300-month sentence under Apprendi,1 Booker,2 and their progeny. In a decision on January 24, 2006, the district court for the Western District of North Carolina noted that Petitioner had failed to obtain pre-filing authorization for a second or successive motion under § 2255. Thus, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Henriques v. U.S., No. 06-27-02, 2006 WL 211817 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2006).
Petitioner promptly appealed the district court's denial of his second § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of appealability on August 1, 2006. See United States v. Henriques, 193 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2006).
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion in the underlying criminal case arguing that an amendment to the Guidelines precluded the application of a firearms enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (b)(1). The court found that the amendment did not apply to his case and Petitioner's motion was denied. United States v. Henriques, No. 93-cr-89, 2009 WL 1606444 (W.D.N.C. June 5, 2009). Petitioner's appeal of the district court's denial was denied on December 17, 2009. See Untied States v. Henriques, 356 F. App'x 664 (4th Cir. 2009).
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Relief Under the Fast Track Program and a Motion for Sentence Reduction in the underlying criminal case, both of which were denied by the district court. Petitioner then filed a third § 2255 petition on August 27, 2012 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and again challenging his sentence. The court noted his previous § 2255 filings, dismissed the petition as second or successive, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Order Dismissing Motion to Vacate, No. 93-cr-0089, United States v. Henriques (W.D.N.C. September 6, 2012) ECF No. 148. Nevertheless, Petitioner appealed the district court's decision and, on December 19, 2012, the appellate court dismissed the appeal. U.S. v. Henriques, 501 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2012).
Petitioner has now filed a motion in this district seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241. In his current Petition, Petitioner states "that he is actually innocent of the Section 841(b)(1)(A) offense that he was sentenced for [sic]." (Pet. 21, ECF No. 1. Although Petitioner frames his challenge as an "actual innocence claim[,]" id., the crux of Petitioner's argument is that the charge in the indictment to which he pled guilty did not specify a drug quantity, which Petitioner asserts is an essential element of the offense for which he wassentenced. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that his sentence is unconstitutional.
United States Code Title 28, Section 2243, provides in relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition must be construed liberally. See Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Denny v. Schult, 708 F.3d 140, 148 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2013); See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.
"It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of their jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of any case." Packard v. Provident Nat. Bank, 994 F.2d 1039,1049 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993); see also Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013); Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Here, Petitioner has asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider this Petition.
As noted by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997), a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been the "usual avenue" for federal prisoners seeking to challenge the legality of their confinement. See also Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. McKeithan, 437 F. App'x 148, 150 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Walker, 980 F. Supp. 144, 145-46 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial