Rich v. Warden
| Decision Date | 16 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Crim. Action RDB-08-438,Civ. Action RDB-19-129 |
| Parties | DAVID RICH, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Following a four-day jury trial before Judge William D. Quarles of this Court, Petitioner David Rich (“Rich” or “Petitioner”) was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One); possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1) (Count Two); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three); possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Four); and assault on a federal law enforcement officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Count Five). On April 22 2010, Judge Quarles sentenced Rich to the enhanced mandatory minimum[1] term of life imprisonment on Count One; a concurrent 420-month term on Count Two, and a concurrent 180-month term of imprisonment on Count Four. (RDB-08-438 ECF No. 55.)[2] Judge Quarles also imposed concurrent terms of 60 months on Count Three and 240 months on Count Five which were to run consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts One, Two, and Four. (Id.) Rich later secured vacatur of a prior Maryland conviction and filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking a re-sentencing for his federal convictions. The Government agreed to the request for re-sentencing, and Judge Quarles reduced Rich's overall sentence to 360 months of imprisonment. (ECF No. 100.) Later, Rich filed another motion seeking a reduction of sentence pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which reduced the guidelines for certain drug quantities. The Government again consented to the motion. (ECF No. 126.) Then-Chief Judge Blake of this Court reduced Rich's sentence to 300 months of imprisonment, the applicable mandatory minimum. (ECF No.127.) Rich is currently serving his sentence at FCI McDowell in Welch, West Virginia. Rich has also filed a Motion for Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (RDB-08-438, ECF No. 152.) For the reasons stated in a separate Memorandum Order, that Motion, construed as a Motion for Sentence Reduction, is GRANTED. Rich will be resentenced by this Court on a date to be determined.
Currently pending before this Court is Petitioner's pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (RDB-19-129, ECF No. 1.) The Government has opposed the Petition. (RDB-19-129, ECF Nos. 3, 15.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.[3]
The facts of this case were summarized by Judge Quarles of this Court in his Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Rich's first Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 97.) On September 16, 2008, Rich was indicted by a grand jury and charged with possession with intent to distribute 100 grams of heroin (Count Two); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Three); possession of a firearm by a felon (Count Four); and assault of a law enforcement officer (Count Five.) (ECF No. 1.) On February 19, 2009, Rich was charged in a superseding indictment with the counts from the original indictment and conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin (Count One). (ECF No. 16.) Rich pled not guilty to all counts and proceeded to trial on September 28, 2009.
The following is a summary of the facts proven at trial that the Government provided to the United States Probation Office for inclusion in Rich's Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”):
The defendant was identified as a member of a drug conspiracy moving significant quantities of heroin. Testimony during the trial from one witness established that the defendant received over ten kilograms of heroin from the witness, who acted as a courier for one of the defendant's suppliers. As part of the investigation, the defendant was surveilled by law enforcement officers traveling to an apartment, 2702 Gresham Way, Apartment 301, Baltimore County, Maryland. At various times, during the evening of August 25-26, 2008, law enforcement officers observed the defendant coming out onto the balcony of Apartment 301. Following a complete night of surveillance, at approximately midday on August 26, 2008, the defendant was observed exiting Apartment 301, and entering his 2008 Mercedes. Agents, armed with an arrest warrant, approached the defendant to take him into custody. The defendant placed his vehicle in drive and attempted to run over one officer, who was a federal task force officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration. The TFO escaped being run over by diving out of the way of the approaching vehicle. The defendant then led police on a high speed chase, culminating in his arrest in a wooded area near Interstate 695. A search warrant was prepared for 2702 Gresham Way Apartment 301. A search of the location revealed over 500 grams of heroin, significant quantities of cutting and packaging paraphernalia for heroin, a loaded .357 caliber handgun, and over $85, 000 in cash.
(Amended PSR, ECF No. 102 ¶ 7.)
On October 1, 2009, the jury found Rich guilty on all counts. (ECF No. 44.) Given his 1994 Baltimore County conviction for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance (ECF No.102 ¶ 41) and his 2004 Baltimore City conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Id. ¶ 56, vacated on July 19, 2013), Rich faced a mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment on Count One. On April 22, 2010, Judge Quarles sentenced Rich to life plus twenty years of imprisonment. (ECF No. 55.) Rich appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion in United States v. Rich, 434 Fed.Appx. 224 (4th Cir. 2011). On November 15, 2013, Judge Quarles resentenced Rich to a total term of 360 months of imprisonment because one of his prior felony drug offenses was vacated on state coram nobis review. (ECF No. 100.) Rich appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed his amended judgment on July 2, 2014. United States v. Rich, 577 Fed.Appx. 234 (4th Cir. 2014). On November 3, 2016, then-Chief Judge Blake of this Court reduced Rich's sentence to a total term of 300 months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. (ECF No. 127.) Rich filed another motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on December 18, 2017. (ECF No. 130.) On July 2, 2018, this Court dismissed the motion as untimely. (ECF Nos. 136, 137.)
On January 11, 2019, Rich filed the presently pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (RDB-19-129, ECF No. 1.) In this pending petition, he seeks to challenge the validity of his sentence. Rich has also filed supplements to his Petition. (RDB-08-438, ECF Nos. 144, 149.) The Government has opposed the Petition. (RDB-19-129, ECF Nos. 3, 15.)
This Court recognizes that the Petitioner is pro se and has accorded his pleadings liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). An inmate may file a motion under § 2255 to lodge a collateral attack on the legality of his conviction or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974). But generally, a prisoner may file a petition under § 2241 only to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). A prisoner must challenge the legality of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless “the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 806-08 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e); see also Farrow v. Revell, 541 F. App'x. 327, 328 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) () (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997). Section 2255(e) is often referred to as the savings clause.
Section 2255 is not inadequate merely because the inmate is unable to obtain relief under § 2255. In re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5. Thus, § 2255 is not rendered inadequate because of a limitation bar, the prohibition against successive petitions, or a procedural bar due to failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. Id. (citing Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988)). Rather, § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when:
In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34.
In United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit applied the Jones factors to a context where a prisoner challenges the legality of his sentence. As the Court noted:
. . . [W]e conclude that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial