Nicholas v. Outlaw
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 6/24/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 6/10/09. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION D E W A Y N E NICHOLAS R e g . #18318-074 V S. CASE NO.: 2:08CV000112 SWW/BD PETITIONER
T .C . OUTLAW, Warden, FCC, Forrest City, Arkansas R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections
T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District C o u rt Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to th is recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or le g a l basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify th a t finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of yo u r objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no la te r than eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A c o p y will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C le rk , United States District Court E a s te rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 1
B ackground: Petitioner is currently serving a one-hundred-seventeen-month sentence in the
B u re a u of Prisons ("BOP") after pleading guilty to possession of materials used to m a n u f a c tu re a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 and possession of a f ire a rm in relation to the drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On June 9, 2 0 0 8 , Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (docket e n try #2) claiming that under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) he is entitled to eligibility for a re d u c tio n in his sentence upon his completion of a residential drug abuse program. (#2 at p .4 ) On July 3, 2008, the District Court entered an order (#8) granting Petitioner's m o tio n to stay his petition pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in G a te w o o d v. Outlaw, 560 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2009). Petitioner moved to lift the stay after th e Eighth Circuit rendered its decision in Gatewood, and the District Court granted the m o tio n . (#9, #10) In his motion to lift the stay, Petitioner again asks the Court to grant him eligibility f o r early release upon completion of the residential drug abuse program. He contends that th e Gatewood decision is not dispositive of his claims. Petitioner claims that the BOP wrongly has deemed him ineligible for early release u p o n completion of the program because of his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and th a t the Eighth Circuit decision in Sesler v. Pitzer, 110 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 1997) is
dispositive. (#9 at p. 2) Sesler v. Pitzer, 110 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U .S . 877 (1997), overruled on other grounds, Hohn v. U.S., 262 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2001). In Sesler, the defendant pleaded guilty to using a firearm while committing a drug tra f f ic k in g crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Id. at 570. Upon completion of a re s id e n tia l drug abuse program, Mr. Sesler petitioned the BOP for a one-year sentence re d u c tio n under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), which provides eligibility for sentence re d u c tio n for prisoners "convicted of a nonviolent offense."1 Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3 6 2 1 (e )(2 )(B ) (emphasis added). The BOP denied the sentence reduction request on the g ro u n d that he was not eligible because he had been convicted of a violent offense. Id. Mr. Sesler filed a habeas petition challenging the BOP's decision, and the Eighth Circuit u p h e ld the district court's decision denying relief. After reviewing the elements n e c e s s a ry to prove a conviction of an offense under § 924(c)(1), the Court concluded that a n offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is "clearly not a nonviolent offense within the m e a n in g of § 3621(e)(2)(B)"; thus Mr. Sesler was not eligible for a sentence reduction b a s e d on his completion of the program. Id. at 572.
1 8 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) provides in relevant part:
P e rio d of custody.-The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense re m a in s in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may b e reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be more th a n one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve. 3
Petitioner concedes that, under the holding in Sesler, the relief he seeks is not a v a ila b le . (#9 at p. 2) Like Mr. Sesler, Petitioner pleaded guilty to an offense under 18 U .S .C . § 924(c), which the Eighth Circuit held to be violent offense. Id. Accordingly, P e titio n e r is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). III. C o n c lu s io n B a se d on the Eighth Circuit's ruling in Sesler, the Court recommends that the D is tric t Court dismiss the petition with prejudice. D A T E D this 10th day of June, 2009.
___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?