Letterlough v. Neely

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION: The Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 3/11/2025. (AHI)

FILED
2025 Mar-11 AM 09:24
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
NYREE LETTERLOUGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KIMBERLY NEELY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:24-cv-00446-LCB-NAD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on December 5,
2024, recommending that this petition for habeas corpus relief, filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, be denied.1 (Doc. 11). On January 21, 2025, the court received
Letterlough’s objection to that report and recommendation. (Doc. 14).
Letterlough’s sole objection is that her conviction for possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A),
should not be deemed a “crime of violence.” (Doc. 14). But as explained to
Letterlough in the report and recommendation, her conviction for possession of a

1

Letterlough’s original 111-month sentence consisted of 51 months for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession of a stolen firearm, to run concurrently, and
60 months for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, to run
consecutively. See United States v. Nyree Letterlough, No. 1:19-cr-00043-CCC-2 (M.D. Penn.
Aug. 29, 2022) (Doc. 169). On January 17, 2025, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., commuted
Letterlough’s prison term to 60 months. (See id., at doc. 205 (filed Jan. 21, 2025)). That
commutation has no impact on Letterlough’s eligibility for earned time credits under the First Step
Act, which is the only issue before this court.

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime rendered her statutorily ineligible
for earned time credits under the First Step Act. Doc. 11 at 4-8; see 18 U.S.C. §
3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii); 28 C.F.R. § 523.41. At no point has Letterlough’s eligibility
for earned time credits under the First Step Act turned on whether she was convicted
of a crime of violence.

Instead, Letterlough’s conviction for violation of §

924(c)(1)(A) excludes her from First Step Act earned time credit eligibility. 2 See
18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii).
To the extent Letterlough asserts that she did not possess a firearm, or that
“the assumption can not be made that the Petitioner was indeed participating in drug
trafficking” (Doc. 14), those arguments go to the validity of her conviction, and not
the execution of her sentence. Letterlough may not use a § 2241 petition as a means
to challenge the validity of her conviction. See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill
Indus.---Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1089 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that claims
for good time credit are properly brought under § 2241, but claims challenging the
validity of a sentence are not); Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348,
1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that only challenges to the execution of a sentence,
and not its validity, may be brought under § 2241); see also Bedgood v. Warden,

2

The Code provision states in relevant part that “any person who, during and in relation to any
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of
any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime
of violence or drug trafficking crime--(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than
5 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
2

FCC Coleman Medium, 859 F. App’x 471, 472 (11th Cir. 2021) (noting that “attacks
on the validity of a federal conviction must be brought under § 2255” but “challenges
to the execution of a sentence are properly brought under § 2241.”).
After a de novo consideration of the entire file in this action, including the
report and recommendation, and Letterlough’s objections, the court ADOPTS the
magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that
the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DENIED.
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED March 11, 2025.

_________________________________
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3