Martin v. Kallis
Filing
10
ORDER AND OPINION denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Civil Case Terminated. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 2/11/2019. (RK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 11 February, 2019 01:23:44 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JULIAN MARTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
STEVE KALLIS, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18-cv-1055
ORDER AND OPINION
Now before the Court is Petitioner Julian Martin’s (hereinafter, “Petitioner” or “Martin”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth
below, his Petition is DENIED.
BACKGROUND1
Martin is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pekin, Illinois.
On September 26, 2013, a federal grand jury in the District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois charged Martin with Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
(Count 1); Accessory After the Fact to Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Count 6); Violent
Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (Count 7);
Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2 (Count 8); Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and
Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 9); and Felon in
Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 24). R. 2.
1
Citations to documents filed in this case are styled as “Doc. __.” Citations to the record in the underlying criminal
case, United States v. Hoskins, et. al., No. 13-cr-00772 (N.D. Ill.), are styled as “R.___.”
1
On December 9, 2014, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment that charged
Martin with Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count 1); Accessory
After the Fact to Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Count 6); Violent Crimes in Aid of
Racketeering Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (Count 7); Possession of a Firearm
in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2 (Count
8); Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and Distribute a Controlled Substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 9); and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 22). R. 7.
On July 7, 2015, after a bench trial, Martin was found guilty of counts 1, 6, 9, and 22 of
the superseding indictment. R. 1150. Martin was acquitted of counts 7 and 8 of the superseding
indictment. Id.
Martin’s sentencing hearing was roughly a year later, on July 8, 2016. The judge orally
pronounced the sentence as follows:
I’m going to commit you to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a total term
of 310 months on Count one; 180 months on Count 6; and 120 months custody on
each of Counts 9 and 22, all to be served concurrently.
I find that you do not have the ability to pay a fine, and so I will waive that
requirement. There is a special assessment of $400, which is due immediately.
Upon your release from prison you will be on supervised release for five years on
Count 1 and three years on Counts 6, 9 and 22, but all to be served -- or all to be
done concurrently.
R. 1590 at 83-84.
The original judgment in the case was entered on July 13, 2016. R. 1595. It stated that
Martin “was found guilty on count(s) 1s, 6s, 9s, 22s after a plea of not guilty,” had “been found
not guilty of count(s) 7s an 8s” and “Count(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24 are dismissed on the motion of the
United States.” Regarding imprisonment, it ordered that:
2
[Martin] is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of
Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: THREE HUNDRED TEN (310)
MONTHS on Count One; ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) MONTHS on Count
Six; ONE HUNDRED-TWENTY (120) MONTHS on Counts Nine and Twentytwo all to run CONCURRENTLY for a total of THREE HUNDRED TEN (310)
MONTHS.
Id. at 2. On December 2, 2016, an amended judgment was issued to correct a clerical error in
the sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. R. 1697. The imprisonment order was amended to
add the language in bold below:
[Martin] is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of
Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: THREE HUNDRED TEN (310)
MONTHS on Count One; ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) MONTHS on Count
Six; ONE HUNDRED-TWENTY (120) MONTHS on Counts Nine and Twentytwo all to run CONCURRENTLY for a total of THREE HUNDRED TEN (310)
MONTHS of the superseding indictment. Defendant is to be given credit for
time served in State custody.
Id.
Martin appealed, and the Seventh Circuit has now affirmed the conviction and sentence.
United States v. King, 910 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2018), reh'g denied (Jan. 4, 2019). Martin did not
appeal any issues related to the validity of either the original or amended written judgments.
The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) computed Martin’s sentence based on the 310-month
total term of imprisonment for Martin’s convictions for Racketeering Conspiracy (Count 1);
Accessory After the Fact to Murder (Count 6); Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to
Distribute and Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 9); and
Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 22). See Sentry
Public Information Inmate Data, Resp. App. at pp. 6-8. The BOP provided Martin with credit
for the time he served in state custody. Id. Martin’s projected release date, taking into account
good conduct time, is August 11, 2035. Id.
3
Martin filed this petition (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 7, 2018, and
argues that the BOP has incorrectly calculated his sentence as 310-months imprisonment.
Specifically, Martin argues that because the judge, when orally pronouncing his sentence, did not
refer to the superseding indictment, the counts she sentenced him to—counts 1, 6, 9, and 22—
were from the original indictment. Martin then argues that, as counts 1, 6, and 9 of the original
indictment were dismissed on motion of the Government, only his sentence of 120 months for
count 22 must remain. Respondent and filed his Response (Doc. 7) and Martin filed a reply
(Doc. 9). This Order follows.
DISCUSSION
Respondent first argues that Martin has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
While “there is no express exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court is entitled
to require a prisoner to exhaust the administrative remedies that the BOP offers before it will
entertain a petition.” Kane v. Zuercher, 344 F. App’x 267, 269 (7th Cir. 2009). Here,
Respondent states that while Martin has filed various requests for administrative remedies via the
BOP’s established administrative remedy procedure, Martin has not filed a request for
administrative remedy with regard to his sentence computation issue. Resp. at 10-11 (Doc. 7).
Martin, however, has submitted copies of his Request for Administrative Remedy dated January
12, 2018, in which he raised this sentence computation issue, as well as the BOP staff’s response.
Pet. Reply, Exs. A and B (Doc. 9). Martin also alleges that BOP staff are refusing to give him
the proper forms to appeal, but would be willing to file an administrative appeal if BOP staff
gave him the forms. Id. at pp. 4. However, the Court need not resolve this dispute and will not
require Martin to further exhaust his administrative remedies, as the Court can easily resolve and
dismiss the Petition on the merits.
4
Martin argues his sentence of imprisonment can only be based on the sentence of 120
months he received for count 22, despite the oral and written judgment sentencing him to prison
for a total of 310 months. His argument is that because the sentencing judge did not specifically
say that the counts she was sentencing him on—1, 6, 9, and 22—were from the superseding
indictment, the judge must have been referring to the original indictment. And, as the
Government specifically dismissed counts 1, 6, and 9, from the original indictment, only count
22 remains for which he has a valid sentence. Martin provides no basis for why the default
assumption would be that the judge meant the original indictment when she did not explicitly
refer to either indictment. Given the fact that the judge found Martin guilty after a bench trial on
counts 1, 6, 9, and 22 of the superseding indictment, there could simply be no confusion that the
judge was referring to the counts of the superseding indictment. Additionally, Martin was not
even charged in count 22 in the original indictment. Martin provides no explanation for why he
would be sentenced to counts he was not only not convicted of, but for one which he was not
even charged.
At best, Martin might argue that the oral sentence was ambiguous as to which indictment
applied. But to the extent the oral sentence here could be seen as ambiguous, “the written
judgment can correct those discrepancies.” United States v. Courtright, 574 F. App'x 743, 744
(7th Cir. 2014). See also, United States v. Daddino, 5 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting the
general rule that “if the oral and written sentences conflict, the oral language governs” does not
apply when the oral language is ambiguous). Both the original and the amended written
judgment make clear that Martin was found guilty on counts 1, 6, 9, and 22 from the superseding
indictment by denoting the counts “1s, 6s, 9s, 22s.” Further, the amended written judgment
makes clear that the term of imprisonment relates to the counts in the superseding indictment by
5
the addition of the words “of the superseding indictment.” Any ambiguity that could exist has
certainly been resolved in the written judgment.
The BOP calculated Martin’s sentence based on the 310-month total term of
imprisonment to which he was sentenced for his convictions under the superseding indictment
for Racketeering Conspiracy (Count 1); Accessory After the Fact to Murder (Count 6);
Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and Distribute a Controlled Substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 9); and Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 22). See Sentry Public Information Inmate Data, Resp. App. at pp. 68. After providing Martin with credit for the time he served in state custody, his projected
release date, taking into account good conduct time, is August 11, 2035. Id. Martin has not
identified any errors in the BOP’s calculation. Accordingly, his Petition must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner Julian Martin’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
This matter is now TERMINATED.
Signed on this 11th day of February, 2019.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge
6
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?