Vaughn v. Warden USP Beaumont

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 6/26/20. (tkd, )

Case 1:20-cv-00174-MJT-KFG Document 5 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
TARIQ AMIN VAUGHN, SR.

'

VS.

'

WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20cv174

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE=S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Tariq Amin Vaughn, Sr., proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the above-styled petition be dismissed without prejudice.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. A copy of the report and recommendation was mailed to petitioner at the address
provided to the court. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the report and recommendation on May
8, 2020. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
have been filed.
The Court presumes that petitioner seeks a sentence reduction based on changes to the Fair
Sentencing Act, which were authorized by the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194,
Title V (2018). The First Step Act provides statutory authorization to the sentencing court to
effectively modify a previously imposed term of imprisonment. See United States v. Hegwood,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00174-MJT-KFG Document 5 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 22

934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2019) (recognizing the First Step Act is similar to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
“which opens the door… for modification of previously imposed sentences for certain specified
reasons”). Under the First Step Act, “The district court’s action is better understood as imposing,
not modifying, a sentence, because the sentencing is being conducted as if all the conditions for
the original sentencing were again in place with the one exception. The new sentence conceptually
substitutes for the original sentence, as opposed to modifying that sentence.” Id. at 419 (emphasis
added).
However, as set forth above, petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. Even as the First Step Act provides statutory authorization to
the sentencing court and not another court of the defendant’s choosing, this Court is not the proper
venue for this request. The government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense
was committed. FED. R. CRIM. P. 18. A case can be transferred from a district where an indictment
and prosecution is pending to the district where the defendant is present if “(1) the defendant states
in writing a wish to…waive trial in the district where the…complaint is pending, consents in
writing to the court’s disposing of the case in the transferee district, and files the statement in the
transferee district; and (2) the United States attorneys in both districts approve the transfer in
writing.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 20. Considering that the petitioner did not request transfer to this Court
prior to sentencing, and since the United States attorneys did not approve a transfer to this district,
this Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, as this Court is not the sentencing court, this Court is
without jurisdiction to resentence petitioner.
More importantly, petitioner has nether alleged nor shown he is “in custody in violation of
the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Accordingly,

2

Case 1:20-cv-00174-MJT-KFG Document 5 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 23

petitioner has failed to state a claim for habeas relief under § 2241. Therefore, the above-styled
petition should be dismissed.
ORDER
Accordingly, 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 will be entered in this
case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge=s recommendations.
SIGNED this 26th day of June, 2020.

____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge

3