Anderson v. Daniels

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this petition be dismissed. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 11/25/15. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
HAROLD ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
versus
CHARLES A. DANIELS,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-659

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Harold Anderson, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary in
Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders
of this court.
The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge concerning the petition. The magistrate judge recommends the petition be
dismissed.
The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,
along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the
objections in light of the pleadings and the applicable law.
Petitioner is challenging several criminal convictions from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. In order to be entitled to relief in this proceeding, petitioner must assert a
ground for review that: (1) is based on a retroactively applicable decision of the United States
Supreme Court which demonstrates he was convicted of a nonexistent offense and (2) was
foreclosed by established circuit law when it could have been raised during trial, on direct appeal

or in an initial motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. Dockery v. Driver, 364 F. App’x
88, 90 (5th Cir. 2010); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 894 (5th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner’s grounds for review do not meet this standard. First, petitioner’s grounds for
review are not based on a retroactively applicable decision of the Supreme Court. In addition,
while petitioner contends he is actually innocent of the offenses he was convicted of committing,
the standard set forth above is not met by an assertion that a petitioner did not commit the acts he
was accused of committing. Instead, a petitioner must assert that even if it is assumed that he
committed the acts he was accused of committing, such acts, because of an intervening change in
law, do not constitute a crime. Petitioner is not asserting that the acts he was accused of
committing do not constitute a crime. As a result, his grounds for review do not provide him with
a basis for relief in this proceeding.1
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing the petition.
.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 25th day of November, 2015.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Even if petitioner could obtain relief based on an assertion of actual innocence, he has not demonstrated he
is actually innocent. Petitioner was convicted of committing crimes that occurred on March 23, 2006. A
letter attached to his petition states petitioner was incarcerated in the District of Columbia Jail from February
8, 2006, through March 8, 2006, and from April 6, 2006, through April 16, 2007. As a result, petitioner
was not incarcerated on the date the offenses were committed. He has therefore not demonstrated actual
innocence.

2