Jefferson v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-CV-615 ERW |
| Parties | SAMMY JEFFERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Sammy Jefferson's pro se Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [ECF No.1]. In his motion, Jefferson argues the Bureau of Prisons miscalculated the aggregate term of imprisonment for his overlapping sentences. As the record before the Court conclusively demonstrates Jefferson is not entitled to relief, the Court will deny Jefferson's petition without an evidentiary hearing.
In 2003, Jefferson was sentenced to 37 months' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). United States v. Jefferson, Case No 4:03-CR-049-ERW, ECF No. 48. While he did not directly appeal, Jefferson challenged his sentence in 2004 by way of a motion to vacate, which this Court denied. See Jefferson v. United States, Case No. 4:04-CV-1258-ERW. After a period of supervised release, on June 5, 2007, the Court imposed a 22-month revocation sentence for new law violations.
Shortly thereafter, on October 11, 2007, Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and one count of distributing more than five kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Jefferson, Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW ECF No. 358. On January 17, 2008, this Court sentenced Petitioner to serve a term of incarceration of 235 months to be followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW, ECF No. 510. The Court ordered Jefferson's sentence to “run concurrent[ly] to his sentence imposed in Docket No. 4:03CR00049 ERW, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5G1.3.” Id. The Court noted the sentence was based on Petitioner's “criminal history because he was serving a term of supervised release for the federal conviction of felon in possession of a firearm at the time of the instant offense.” Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW, ECF No. 543 at 21.
On February 27, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for retroactive application of sentencing guidelines amendment 782, requesting the Court reduce his 235-month sentence to 188 months of incarceration. Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW, ECF Nos. 811, 839. Because Petitioner had incurred significant institutional violations while incarcerated, this Court did not grant Petitioner's full request, but instead only reduced Petitioner's sentence down to 200 months. Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW, ECF No. 844.
Prior to filing his § 2255 motion here, Jefferson filed five pro se motions in his closed 2007 criminal case. Each pro se motion essentially addressed the same argument Movant sets forth here-that the Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated Petitioner's sentence. The Court denied all five motions in its memorandum and order dated April 1, 2021. On May 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of this Court.
On May 4, 2020, Jefferson filed the instant Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. In his motion, Jefferson indicates his challenge is to his 22-month 2007 revocation sentence in Case No. 4:03-CR-049-ERW. Movant states his motion is timely under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), but describes the nature of his claim as:
Bureau of Prisons does not have the power to unilaterally eliminate court determined credit 22 months concurrent sentence, thereby increasing Petitioner's sentence to 207 months. Alleging sentence is overlapping, and disregarding Judgment and conviction 1/17/08 (e.g. two or more sentences to be served simultaneously. Concurrent sentence is 22 months and 200 months, the total prison time is 200 months.
Jefferson asks that the Court grant the following relief: “[C]orrect the concurrent sentence 4:03-CR-0049 per directive order of amended judgment in case 4:07-cr-0084-ERW-20 total 200 months rather than 207 as BOP has calculated overlapping sentence or vacate supervised release in case no. 4:03-CR-0049-ERW.” ECF No. 1 at 12.
Petitioner is currently being housed at the United States Penitentiary-USP Florence in Florence, Colorado. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, (http:bop.gov/inmateloc) (last visited July 30, 2021).
A federal prisoner who seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on grounds “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To obtain relief under § 2255, the petitioner must establish a constitutional or federal statutory violation constituting “a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gomez, 326 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Boone, 869 F.2d 1089, 1091 n.4 (8th Cir. 1989)).
Claims brought under § 2255 may be limited by procedural default. A petitioner “cannot raise a non-constitutional or non-jurisdictional issue in a § 2255 motion if the issue could have been raised on direct appeal but was not.” Anderson v. United States, 25 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 1994). Claims, including those concerning constitutional and jurisdictional issues, unraised on direct appeal cannot subsequently be raised in a § 2255 motion unless the petitioner establishes “(1) cause for default and actual prejudice or (2) actual innocence.” United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621-22 (1998)). Exceptions to this rule are recognized only upon production of convincing new evidence of actual innocence and are available only in the extraordinary case. United States v. Wiley, 245 F.3d 750, 752 (8th Cir. 2001). However, ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be raised for the first time in a § 2255 motion even if they could have been raised on direct appeal. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
If the petitioner's claims are not procedurally barred, the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing to consider the claims “[u]nless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see also Shaw v. United States, 24 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1994). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing “when the facts alleged, if true, would entitle [the petitioner] to relief.” Payne v. United States, 78 F.3d 343, 347 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). However, a court may dismiss a claim without a hearing “if the claim is inadequate on its face or if the record affirmatively refutes the factual assertions upon which it is based.” Shaw, 24 F.3d at 1043.
Jefferson asserts the BOP miscalculated his aggregate sentence as 207 months instead of 200 months. He argues seven months should be credited to his 22-month revocation sentence in Case No. 4:03CR0049 ERW for the time he spent in custody before being sentenced to 235 months in Case No. 4:07CR00184 ERW on January 17, 2008.
The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has the authority to determine when a federal sentence commences. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (“After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for administering the sentence.”); United States v. Hayes, 535 F.3d 907, 910 (8th Cir. 2008). The BOP has exclusive jurisdiction to determine sentence credits in the first instance. The district court cannot award sentencing credits. United States v. Pineyro, 112 F.3d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Cobleigh, 75 F.3d 242, 251 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. McGee, 60 F.3d 1266, 1272 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 349-50 (9th Cir. 1992).
Thus, the calculation of any credit for time served is a matter for the Bureau of Prisons, not this Court. See United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (8th Cir. 1996) ( the district court did not have authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) to credit the petitioner for time spent in home detention during a previous sentence, and such a claim should first be presented to the Bureau of Prisons). Administrative procedures exist within the Bureau of Prisons to review the Bureau's failure to credit time served, should such a failure occur. United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004).
Where the warden of a Petitioner's BOP facility denies the Petitioner's request for an administrative remedy, the Petitioner must appeal the decision pursuant to the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program. 28 C.F.R. § 571.63(a). Specifically, the Administrative Remedy Program states:
An inmate who is not satisfied with the Warden's response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-10) to the appropriate Regional Director within calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response. An inmate who is not satisfied with the Regional Director's response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-11) to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response. When the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay, these time limits may be extended …. Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal.
Once a...
To continue reading
Request your trial