Tate v. Warden

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 2 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 3/13/2018. (sap)

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAK' | ^ | | | | g
1
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA D I V I S I O N
HERMAN LEE TATE,
BOP I D # 13566-058,

HABEAS CORPUS
28 U.S.C. § 2 2 4 1

Petitioner,
C I V I L ACTION F I L E NO.
1:18-CV-661-ODE-JKL

V .

WARDEN, USP ATLANTA,
Respondent
ORDER

T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t o n t h e M a g i s t r a t e Judge's O r d e r
and

Final

Report

a n d Recommendation

objections thereto

(Doc. 2 ) , a n d P e t i t i o n e r ' s

(Doc. 4 ) .

I n r e v i e w i n g a M a g i s t r a t e Judge's R&R, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
make a de novo

determination

o f those

"shall

portions o f the report or

s p e c i f i e d proposed f i n d i n g s o r recommendations t o w h i c h o b j e c t i o n i s
made."

28 U.S.C. § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) .

magistrate's
those

findings

objections
States
Marsden

report

V.

objected

to.

v. Moore,

reject,

recommendations

on

specifically

conclusive,

by t h e d i s t r i c t

847 F.2d 1536, 1548 ( 1 1 t h C i r .

made

i n whole

by

of

or i npart,

the magistrate
satisfy

itself

t h e record"

i n order

Fed. R. C i v . P. 72, a d v i s o r y

o r general
United

2009)

1988))

(quoting
(internal

j u d g e "may

t h e f i n d i n g s and

[judge],"
that

toa

identify

court."

Absent o b j e c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t

o r modify,

t h e face

recommendation.

objections

565 F.3d 1353, 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r .

§ 636 (b) ( 1 ) , a n d "need o n l y
error

Frivolous,

need n o t be c o n s i d e r e d
Schultz,

filing

a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n must

q u o t a t i o n marks o m i t t e d ) .
accept,

"Parties

there

28

U.S.C.

i s no c l e a r

t o accept t h e

c o m m i t t e e n o t e , 1983

Addition, Subdivision

(b) .

I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h 28 U.S.C. § 6 3 6 ( b ) (1)

a n d R u l e 72 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l
conducted

a de novo

Petitioner

objects

plain
Cir.

error.

review o f those
a n d has r e v i e w e d

See United

Procedure, t h e Court has

portions

t h e remainder

States v. Slay,

o f t h e R&R f o r

714 F.2d 1093, 1095

(11th

1983).
Petitioner objects

t o t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he h a s

n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e s a v i n g c l a u s e i n t h i s case.
28

o f t h e R&R t o w h i c h

U.S.C.

Spencer

§ 2255

i s n o t adequate

v. United States,

banc) .

I n Spencer,

a

P e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t

t o address

h i s claims,

773 F.3d 1132, 1138 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2014) ( e n
§ 22 55

movant

argued

that

he h a d been

m i s c l a s s i f l e d as a c a r e e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g
The E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t h e l d

citing

that

guidelines.

" [w]hen a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r ,

sentenced

b e l o w t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum, c o m p l a i n s o f s e n t e n c i n g e r r o r a n d does
not prove e i t h e r actual
prior conviction,
that

a

court

the prisoner

sentencing

justice,"

error

as r e q u i r e d

c a n n o t s a t i s f y t h e demanding s t a n d a r d

resulted

t o obtain

f u r t h e r noted t h a t

guidelines

innocence o f h i s crime o r t h e v a c a t u r o f a

i n a

complete

§ 2255 r e l i e f .

miscarriage of

Id. a t 1139.

"[a]misapplication of advisory

The

sentencing

. . . does n o t . . . r a i s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n c e r n s . "

Id.

A c c o r d i n g t o P e t i t i o n e r , Spencer s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n

that

a t 1140.

t h e § 2255 remedy i s i n a d e q u a t e t o a d d r e s s h i s c l a i m ,

thus s a t i s f y i n g

the

stands

saving

clause.

The C o u r t

disagrees.

Spencer

p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t § 2255 c a n n o t be u s e d t o c h a l l e n g e a
of

t h e sentencing guidelines.

Petitioner's

-2-

life

f o r the

misapplication

s e n t e n c e was n o t

imposed

based

guidelines.

on a c a r e e r

. Rather,

offender

hislife

status

sentence

under

was imposed p u r s u a n t

U.S.C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , w h i c h imposes a m a n d a t o r y l i f e
a defendant

has t w o o r more p r i o r

s u c h . a c l a i m may n o t have

t h e sentencing

f e l o n y drug

been u l t i m a t e l y

t o 21

sentence

convictions.

successful,

when
While

Petitioner

c o u l d have r a i s e d h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s p r i o r f e l o n y d r u g c o n v i c t i o n s
should

n o t have been u s e d

as a b a s i s

t o impose

s e n t e n c e u n d e r § 8 4 1 i n a § 2255 m o t i o n .
Goodwill

Indus.-Suncoast,

a mandatory

See McCarthan

Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1090-91

v. Dir. of
(11th C i r .

2 0 1 7 ) , c e r t , denied, 138 S. Ct. 502 (Dec. 4, 2017) ( n o t i n g t h a t
of

success on t h e m e r i t s a r e [ n o t ] r e l e v a n t

inquiry").
failed

t o t h e saving

"odds
clause

As t h e M a g i s t r a t e Judge n o t e d i n t h e R&R, P e t i t i o n e r has

t o show t h a t t h e s a v i n g c l a u s e a p p l i e s i n t h i s

Petitioner's
modify,

life

or

o b j e c t i o n s do n o t i n d i c a t e

set aside

the conclusions

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e o b j e c t i o n s a r e OVERRULED.
the remainder

case.^

a basis

reached

t o reject,

i n t h e R&R.

F i n d i n g no c l e a r e r r o r i n

o f t h e R&R, t h e C o u r t ADOPTS t h e R&R as t h e O r d e r a n d

Opinion o f t h i s

Court.

I T I S SO ORDERED t h i s 13

d a y o f March, 2 0 1 8 .

ORINDA D. EVANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

^The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t P e t i t i o n e r h a s a s s e r t e d t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e
i s i n v a l i d i n l i g h t o f Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254
( 2 0 1 3 ) , a n d Mathis v. United States, 136 S. C t . 2243 ( 2 0 1 6 ) .
Both
Descamps a n d Mathis a d d r e s s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Armed C a r e e r C r i m i n a l
A c t , 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 4 ( e ) , a n d have no b e a r i n g o n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f
§ 8 4 1 ( b ) (1) (A) .
-3-