Mathis v. Baltazar, CIVIL NO. 1:18-CV-395
Decision Date | 16 April 2018 |
Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 1:18-CV-395 |
Parties | GREGORY MATHIS, Petitioner v. WARDEN BALTAZAR, Respondent |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Chief Judge Conner)
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Gregory Mathis ("Mathis"), a federal inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan, in Waymart, Pennsylvania. Mathis challenges a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for the crimes of aiding and abetting robbery of mail by use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114, and aiding and abetting possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. (Id.) Mathis claims that his federal sentence was based on an incorrect criminal history score, and requests that the court correct his alleged inaccurate criminal history score. (Id.)
Preliminary review of the petition has been undertaken, see R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.4,1 and, for the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 26, 2009, a jury convicted Mathis of aiding and abetting robbery of mail by use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114, and aiding and abetting possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. United States v. Mathis, No. 5:08-cr-20602 (E.D. Mich. 2008). The district court sentenced Mathis to 150 months of imprisonment on count one and sixty months on count two, to be served concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. Id. The district court also ordered restitution in the amount of $10,045.75. Id.
Mathis appealed his conviction to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Mathis, No. 09-1811 (6th Cir. 2010). On July 26, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, and found as follows:
United States v. Mathis, No. 09-1811 (6th Cir. 2010) at (Doc. 65-1 at 2-3).
Mathis filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the ground that the probation officer incorrectly applied criminal history points whenpreparing his pre-sentence report, resulting in an incorrect sentence. (Doc. 1). For relief, Mathis seeks release from custody and requests that the court correct his criminal history score. (Id. at 16; Doc. 1-1 at 8).
Challenges to the legality of federal convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution may generally be brought only in the district of sentencing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974)); see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997). Once relief is sought via section 2255, an individual is prohibited from filing a second or subsequent 2255 petition unless the request for relief is based on "newly discovered evidence" or a "new rule of constitutional law." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A).
Review of a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is limited to circumstances where the remedy available under section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); OKereke, 307 F.3d at 120 ( ). Section 2255 may be inadequate or ineffective when a federal prisoner is in an unusual position of having no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction or where he "is being detained for conduct that has subsequently been rendered noncriminal by an intervening Supreme Court decision." Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52. Conversely, "[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended§ 2255." Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 2000); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. "If a prisoner attempts to challenge his conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the habeas petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction." Id., citing Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971) (). See also United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999) ( ).
Mathis argues that he is entitled to habeas relief under § 2241 because he is not challenging his conviction, but rather his criminal history score, which was allegedly incorrect. Mathis is essentially seeking the correction of sentencing errors, and not the execution of his sentence. A § 2255 motion is the appropriate and exclusive mechanism for seeking federal judicial review to alter or amend a presentence report. See United States v. Ballard, 855 F.Supp.2d 406, 414 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ( ); Bowens v. United States, 2011 WL 5520531, *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2011), aff'd, 508 F. App'x 96 (3d Cir. 2013) ().
Furthermore, sentencing enhancement challenges are insufficient to invoke § 2241. See Cradle, 290 F.3d 536, 538-39 (3d Cir. 2002). In Dorsainvil, the Third Circuit held that relief under § 2241 is permissible where a subsequent statutory interpretation renders a petitioner's conduct no longer criminal. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52; Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 ( ). Section 2241 is not available for intervening changes in the sentencing law. Id. United States v. Kenney, 391 F. App'x 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2010). Mathis does not allege that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted; rather, he alleges that his sentence was improperly calculated based on an incorrect application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. "[C]hallenges to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines are properly considered under § 2255." Savage v. Zickefoose, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial