LASLEY v. HOLLINGSWORTH
Filing
2
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/12/15. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
JORDAN R. HOLLINGSWORTH,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
RONALD LASLEY,
Civ. No. 15-3535 (NLH)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Ronald Lasley, #11601-031
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner, pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner, Ronald Lasley, a federal prisoner confined at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey,
brings this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging a sentencing enhancement.
For the reasons that
follow, this Court determines that it is without jurisdiction to
consider this matter and the Petition will be dismissed.
I.
BACKGROUND
According to the allegations of the Petition, Petitioner
was convicted and sentenced on March 23, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas. See United
States v. Lasley, No. 02-cr-20067-2 (CM) (D. Kan.).
1
A review of
the criminal docket in that case indicates that Petitioner was
convicted on two drug counts: Conspiracy To Distribute And
Possess With Intent To Distribute More Than Five Kilograms Of
Cocaine, And To Manufacture, Distribute, And Possess With Intent
To Distribute More than 50 Grams Of Cocaine Base in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), (b)(1)(A)(iii), 846
and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and also of Attempt To Possess With Intent To
Distribute Five Kilograms Or More Of Cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Judgment at 2, United States v. Lasley, No. 02-cr-20067-2 (CM)
(D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2009) (ECF No. 97).
He was sentenced to 235
months’ imprisonment. Id. at 3.
Petitioner entered into a post-conviction agreement with
the government in which he agreed to waive his right to appeal
or collaterally attack any matter in connection with
prosecution, conviction, or the components of the sentence to be
imposed. 1
Despite this agreement, Petitioner appealed, see
United States v. Lasley, 331 F. App'x 600, 601 (10th Cir. 2009),
and argued that his sentence was based on the impermissible
factor of his race.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found
that it would not be a miscarriage of justice to enforce
1
This agreement is sealed. See Sealed Order and Post-Conviction
Agreement, United States v. Lasley, No. 02-cr-20067-2 (CM) (D.
Kan. Mar. 28, 2008) (ECF No.61).
2
Petitioner’s appeal waiver and the appeal was dismissed on June
15, 2009. Id. at 603. 2
In addition, Petitioner’s sentence was twice reduced upon
Petitioner’s motions for reductions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2).
First, on December 2, 2011, his sentenced was
reduced from 235 months to 188 months. Order Regarding Motion
for Sentence Reduction, United States v. Lasley, No. 02-cr20067-2 (CM) (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2011) (ECF No. 116).
Most
recently, on February 10, 2015, his sentence was reduced again
from 188 months to 151 months, comparably less than the amended
guideline range. Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction,
United States v. Lasley, No. 02-cr-20067-2 (CM) (D. Kan. Feb.
10, 2015) (ECF No. 143).
Petitioner now brings this request for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and asserts that the
district court improperly calculated and applied a 2-point level
weapon enhancement.
Specifically, Petitioner relies on United
States v. McFarlane, 933 F.2d 898 (10th Cir. 1991), in support
of his argument that “the government failed to establish that
2
Petitioner also filed a motion for new trial, which was denied,
United States v. Lasley, No. 07-20067-002-C, 2008 WL 191622 (D.
Kan. Jan. 22, 2008); and a series of documents before the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, all of which
were addressed in an Order dated February 24, 2014, United
States v. Lasley, No. 07-20067-02-CM, 2014 WL 695392 (D. Kan.
Feb. 24, 2014).
3
[he] possessed a firearm in the vicinity of the drug
transaction.” (Pet. 10, ECF No. 1).
Petitioner denies knowing
that a weapon was ever present at the drug transaction and he
repeatedly contends that the Presentence Report (“PSR”)
contained no evidence or facts to support the allegation that a
firearm was carried or used in connection with the drug
transaction.
Petitioner contends that, despite the lack of
supporting evidence, the district court accepted the allegations
in the PSR and this resulted in an improper guidelines range for
sentencing. Id. at 11, 12.
Petitioner requests relief in the form of a correction to
“the improperly applied weapon and relevant conduct
enhancement.” Id. at 13.
He also requests an evidentiary
hearing and recalculation of his sentence to 121 months’
imprisonment. Id.
Petitioner has also filed a Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 1-2).
II.
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
United States Code Title 28, Section 2243, provides in
relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application
for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the
writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless
it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.
4
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
A pro se habeas petition must be construed liberally. See
Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002).
Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas
corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Denny v. Schult,
708 F.3d 140, 148 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. §§
2243, 2255.
B. JURISDICTION
“It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy
themselves of their jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits
of any case.” Packard v. Provident Nat. Bank, 994 F.2d 1039,
1049 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
946 (1993); see also Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064
(2013); Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S.
534, 541 (1986).
Here, Petitioner has asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is appropriately filed in the district where the prisoner
is confined. Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1976).
5
However, petitions filed under § 2241 are an appropriate
mechanism for challenging — not the validity — but the execution
of a sentence. See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485–86 (3d
Cir. 2001); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478–79 (3d Cir.
1990); Gomori, 533 F.2d at 874 (holding that petitions under §
2241 provide a remedy where prisoner challenges effect of events
“subsequent” to his sentence on that sentence).
Here, Petitioner does not raise issues regarding the
execution of his sentence, but instead collaterally challenges
the validity of his sentence by alleging an improper sentence
enhancement.
Thus, he does not raised a cognizable claim under
§ 2241 and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the
Petition. See Medina v. Zickefoose, No. 11-6752 (NLH), 2014 WL
6804438, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2014) (challenges to a sentence
as imposed should be brought under § 2255, while challenges to
the manner in which a sentence is executed should be brought
under § 2241) (citations omitted).
To the extent Petitioner asserts jurisdiction under § 2241
because a motion pursuant to § 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective,” the Court notes that a petitioner may resort to a
section 2241 petition “only where the petitioner demonstrates
that some limitation or procedure would prevent a § 2255
proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of
his wrongful [sentence] claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner,
6
290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citations
omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Moreover, the Third
Circuit in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251–52 (3d Cir.
1997), indicated that this “safety valve” is a narrow one and
has been held to apply in situations where the prisoner has had
no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime
later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in the
law. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.
2002) (citing Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251).
In this case, Petitioner has not cited to any intervening
change in substantive law which would render Petitioner’s
conduct non-criminal.
Additionally, Petitioner states that he
has not previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Pet.
6, ECF No. 1).
A review of filings in the District of Kansas
confirms that no such petition has been filed.
Accordingly, §
2255 is not an inadequate or ineffective remedy for Petitioner's
claim and Petitioner fails to show that he falls within the
“safety valve” which would give this Court jurisdiction over his
Petition.
Although Petitioner should be mindful of the one-year
limitations period applicable to petitions filed under § 2255,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f), nothing in this Opinion precludes
Petitioner from filing such a petition in the District of
7
Kansas. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (jurisdiction for motions filed
under § 2255 properly lies with the sentencing court).
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Because this Petition is filed under § 2241, no certificate
of appealability is necessary. See United States v. Cepero, 224
F.3d 256, 264–65 (3d Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Petition is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
In light of the dismissal,
Petitioner’s application for pro bono counsel is denied as moot.
An appropriate Order follows.
___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey
8
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?