Suarez v. Maruka
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-00422 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Parties | EMMANUEL SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. C. MARUKA, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending is Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Document No. 1.) By Standing Order, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Document No. 3.) Having examined Petitioner's Section 2241 Petition, the undersigned finds and respectfully recommends that Petitioner's Petition should be dismissed.
On August 10, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to one count of Distribution of Heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Three), one count of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count Six), and Being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (Count Eight). United States v. Suarez, Case No. 4:15-cr-00099 (E.D.Mo. Oct. 26, 2015), Document Nos. 57 and 58. On December 15, 2016, the District Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of 120-months of imprisonment, which consisted of a term of 60 months on Counts Three and Eight to run concurrently and a term of 60 months on Count Six to be served consecutively to Counts Three and Eight. Id., Document No. 77. The District Court further imposed a three-year term of supervised release and a $300 special assessment. Id.
On November 2, 2015, Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal. Id., Document Nos. 80 and 83. Petitioner's counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues to appeal and questioning whether Petitioner's plea was knowing and voluntary. Id., Document No. 114. By per curiam Opinion entered on June 20, 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Id.; United States v. Suarez, 652 Fed.Appx. 492 (8th Cir. 2016).
On May 23, 2017, Petitioner filed in the Eastern District of Missouri a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Suarez v. United States, Case No. 4:17-cv-01566 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 29, 2017), Document No. 1. As grounds for relief, Petitioner asserted that trial counsel was ineffective based on the following: (1) Misadvising Petitioner “about the time he was facing which impeded his ability to knowingly and voluntarily make a decision to plead guilty;” and (2) Failing to secure Petitioner a minor role reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. On October 2, 2017, the United States filed its Response. Id., Document No. 6. On November 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relation Back Amendment Pursuant to Rule 15 arguing he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and requesting the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if his attorney was sufficiently ineffective to render the guilty plea involuntary. Id., Document No. 8. By Memorandum and Order entered on December 28, 2017, the District Court granted Petitioner's Motion for Relation Back Amendment Pursuant to Rule 15 and denied Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion. Id., Document Nos. 10 and 11.
On June 20, 2017, Petitioner filed in the Eastern District of Missouri a Motion to Modify Sentencing. Suarez, Case No. 4:15-cr-00099, Document No. 135. On August 17, 2017, the United States filed its Response. Id., Document No. 141. By Order entered on September 18, 2017, the District Court denied Petitioner's Motion to Modify Sentence. Id., Document No. 143.
On March 11, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines Pursuant to Amendment 782. Id., Document No. 144. On April 2, 2019, the United States filed its Response arguing that Petitioner was not eligible for a sentence reduction because Petitioner was sentenced on October 26, 2015, after Amendment 782 went into effect. Id., Document No. 146. By Order entered on April 16, 2019, the District Court denied Petitioner's forgoing Motion. Id., Document No. 149.
On December 6, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. Id., Document No. 172. On April 2, 2020, the United States filed its Response in Opposition arguing that Petitioner was sentenced well after the effective date (August 3, 2010) of the Fair Sentencing Act. Id., Document No. 176. The United States further argued that to the extent Petitioner was attempting to challenge his Section 924(c) conviction based upon United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), a First Step Motion was an inappropriate vehicle to challenge his conviction and Davis is inapplicable to Petitioner's conviction. Id. By Memorandum Order entered on May 8, 2020, the District Court denied Petitioner's foregoing Motion. Id., Document No. 179.
On June 22, 2020, Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.[1] (Civil Action No. 1:20-00422, Document No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) based upon Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). (Id.) Petitioner explains that in Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that prior to him entering a plea of guilty to Count Eight (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction), “at no time was Petitioner informed by the Court, defense counsel, or the Government's counsel of a jury right to findings that he must know he belonged to a category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” (Id.) Petitioner claims that had he known the foregoing, “Petitioner would not have entered a plea of guilty because no such proof existed.” (Id.) Petitioner concludes that “[n]o sentence would have been imposed as a result of Count 8 because Petitioner did not know he was a prohibited person.” (Id.) Petitioner states that he can meet the requirements of the “savings clause” because the “issue herewith is a new interpretation of a criminal statute” and “not constitutional or newly discovered under Section 2255(h).” (Id.) As relief, Petitioner requests “release from federal custody” because “[n]o sentence should have been imposed as a result of Count 8 because Petitioner did not know he was a prohibited person.”[2] (Id.)
In considering an inmate's application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court must consider whether the inmate is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21, 96 S.Ct. 175, 177, 46 L.Ed.2d 162 (1975). The Court notes that Section 2241 is merely a general grant of habeas corpus authority. See Medberry v Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003). More specific grants of habeas corpus authority are found in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (state prisoners) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (federal prisoners). See Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 2004). Section 2255 is the exclusive remedy for testing the validity of federal judgments and sentences unless there is a showing that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. In Re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000). The remedy under Section 2241 is not an additional, alternative or supplemental remedy to that prescribed under Section 2255. Rather, Section 2241 applies to circumstances factually quite different from those properly considered under Section 2255. While the validity of Petitioner's conviction and/or sentence is in issue under Section 2255, matters pertaining to Petitioner's “commitment or detention” are properly the subject under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Thus, in addition to those very narrow circumstances under which Section 2255 is “inadequate and ineffective,” issues arising out of the allegedly unlawful or incorrect computation of Petitioner's sentence and resulting in an unconstitutional restraint upon his liberty are properly considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Allegations that a federal conviction or sentence is invalid are therefore appropriately considered under Section 2255, and allegations respecting the execution of a federal sentence are properly considered under Section 2241. “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).
In view of the nature of the claims, the undersigned finds Petitioner's claims are ones properly considered under Section 2255, not Section 2241. Essentially, Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction as imposed by the Eastern District of Missouri. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his Section 922(g) conviction is invalid based upon Rehaif. In Rehaif, the United States Supreme Court considered whether under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove that an individual knew both that he engaged in the prohibited conduct of possessing a firearm and had obtained the relevant status which made his possession of the firearm illegal. United States v Rehaif, U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2191, 2194, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial