Iacullo v. Stamper
Decision Date | 22 August 2016 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:13-CV-523-WHA |
Parties | DINO IACULLO, Reg. No. 30812-004, Petitioner, v. DENNIS STAMPER, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Dino Iacullo ("Iacullo"), a federal inmate incarcerated at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp at the time he filed this petition. The respondents filed responses addressing the claims for relief presented by Iacullo, and Iacullo submitted replies in support of his petition. Upon review of the petition, the responses filed by the respondents, and the replies filed by the petitioner, the court concludes that Iacullo's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be dismissed.
In 1995, a federal grand jury empaneled by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida indicted Iacullo for his role in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine.1 A jury found Iacullo guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. On July 21, 1996,the court sentenced Iacullo to 293 months' imprisonment to run concurrently on each conviction, followed by five years of supervised release. Doc. 17-1 at 1-3. Iacullo filed a direct appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. See United States v. Iacullo, 142 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 1998); Doc. 17-2 at 5-12. Iacullo did not petition the United States Supreme Court for review of these convictions. Under applicable law, a conviction becomes final when "a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for [filing] a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari [is] finally denied." Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987); Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2002). "The period in which a petition for certiorari must be filed ordinarily ends ninety (90) days after the entry of judgment." Dodd v. United States, 365 F.3d 1273, 1275 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, Iacullo's convictions became final on or about July 21, 1998, after the ninety-day period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court had expired.
Beginning in June of 1999, Iacullo filed four 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court dismissed the first two such motions without prejudice upon motions filed by Iacullo. The third § 2255 motion was "dismissed as time-barred[,]" Doc. 1 at 4, while the court dismissed the fourth § 2255 motion because Iacullo lacked authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive motion, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and, in the alternative, as untimely. Doc. 17-4 at 4-5.2 In October of 2014, Iacullo filed a motionfor reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after the United States Sentencing Commission adopted a 2014 amendment to the sentencing guidelines that reduced offense levels for certain drug offenses. See United States v. Iacullo, 631 F. App'x 854 (11th Cir. 2015). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this denial. The appellate court's opinion, in relevant part, reads as follows:
Iacullo, 631 F. App'x. at 855-56. In affirming this decision, the Eleventh Circuit noted that although "Iacullo was eligible for a sentence reduction . . . [t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Iacullo's § 3582(c)(2) motion[,]" due solely to "his 'prior drug activity.'" Id. at 857.
Iacullo filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in July of 2013. In this petition, Iacullo challenges the constitutionality of the 293-month sentence imposed upon him by United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the conspiracy to possess and attempted possession of cocaine convictions. Specifically, Iacullo alleges that this sentence was improperly enhanced beyond the maximum authorized by law in violation of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).3 Doc. 1 at 5-9. In support of this allegation, Iacullo asserts that Alleyne and Apprendi establish he is actually innocent of the 293-month sentence because he was never indicted, convicted or found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the conduct or drug quantities on which the sentence is based. Doc. 1 at 8-9. Iacullo therefore argues that the trial court had no authority to enhance his sentence based on elements neither stated in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and a fundamental defect occurred at sentencing and Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed his claims in prior post-conviction actions such that he should be allowed to proceed on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the "savings clause" set forth in § 2255(e).
The respondents filed responses in opposition to Iacullo's habeas petition in which they argue that Iacullo has failed to meet his burden of showing that the remedy available to him under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective" as required by § 2255(e), and therefore he may not proceed before this court on the current 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Doc. 14 at 3-5; Doc. 17 at 2-5; Doc. 36 at 5; Doc. 46 at 6. Iacullo filed responses to each of the briefs filed by the respondents. In these responses, Iacullo argues that his challenge to the excessive nature of the 293-month sentence meets the narrow exception provided by the savings clause and permits review of his claim in a § 2241 habeas petition. Iacullo cites numerous cases, including Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), in support of this argument. The respondents, however, maintain that Iacullo's reliance on these and other cases is misplaced:
To continue reading
Request your trial