Williams v. USA
ORDER: Plaintiff has up to and including 5/14/2007 to either withdraw the 1 motion or amend it so that it contains all the Section 2255 claims he believes he has. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 04/6/2007. (thd) (Docket entry modified on 4/9/2007 to correct the filing date.) (thd)
Williams v. USA
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION WENDELL DAVID WILLIAMS v. CASE NO. 4:07-CV-00326 GTE DEFENDANT ORDER The record reflects that on February 5, 2004, Plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to Production of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) in accordance with the terms of a written plea agreement. Plaintiff's sentencing hearing occurred on May 27, 2004. On June 1, 2004, this Court entered judgment sentencing Plaintiff to 120 months' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Williams commenced the proceeding at bar on April 2, 2007, by filing what he characterized as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A prisoner may challenge the execution of his sentence by means of a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of his incarceration, but a challenge to the validity of the sentence itself must be brought under section 2255 in the district of the sentencing court. See Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002). It appears that "execution" means the manner in which a sentence is actually served, i.e. a petition filed to challenge "calculations by the Bureau of Prisons of the credit to be given for other periods of detention, or decisions to deny parole, . . . or conditions of confinement . . .." See Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2001). Section 2255 provides in 1 PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Page 2 of 3
part that a federal prisoner may seek "release upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or that the Court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his petition, Plaintiff Williams asserts that this Court had no jurisdiction or authority in his criminal case, 4:04-cr-00011-01 GTE. Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate all judgments, orders, sentences, fines, assessments, and contracts, including plea agreements. Therefore, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff is not challenging the execution of his sentence, but is attempting to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff is placed on notice that the Court intends to recharacterize Plaintiff's submission from a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In accordance with Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), the Court notifies the Plaintiff that the intended recharacterization means that any subsequent section 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on "second or successive" motions,1 and gives the Plaintiff the opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the section 2255 claims he believes he has. Therefore, Plaintiff has up to and including May 14, 2007, to either withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the section 2255 claims he believes he has. If Plaintiff neither withdraws the motion, nor amends it, the Court will consider the motion under section 2255 as presently stated. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff has up to and including May 14, 2007,
28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides, in part, that "[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals. . . ." 2
Page 3 of 3
to either withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the section 2255 claims he believes he has. If Plaintiff neither withdraws the motion, nor amends it, the Court will consider the motion under section 2255 as presently stated. Dated this 6th day of April, 2007. /s/Garnett Thomas Eisele___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?