Wright v. Edge

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 3 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 12/18/2017. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CHARLES WRIGHT JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
D. EDGE, WARDEN AT FCI
TEXARKANA;
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-00163-RWS

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles Wright, Jr., an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se,
filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No.
1. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate
Judge, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3).

The Magistrate Judge has

submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”)
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Docket No. 3 at 3. Mr.
Wright filed objections to the Report.

Docket No. 5.

The Court reviews the objected-to

portions of the Report de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Mr. Wright was previously convicted of conspiring to manufacture and distribute more than
five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base. The conviction resulted in a
sentence of 292 months of imprisonment. Mr. Wright filed the instant petition for writ of habeas
corpus, contending his sentence was improper because it was based on facts not found by the jury
to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
In her Report, the Magistrate Judge concludes that because Petitioner is contesting the

sentence he received for his conviction, rather than challenging the conviction itself, his ground for
review could not be asserted in a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 Docket No. 3 at 3.
Mr. Wright objects to this conclusion, arguing that the petition does challenge the manner in which
his sentence is being executed. Docket No. 5 at 3. The Court disagrees with Mr. Wright. An
example of a challenge to the manner in which a sentence is being executed would be an assertion
that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to give an inmate credit towards his sentence for time spent
incarcerated prior to sentencing. Where a petitioner asserts that the sentence imposed by the trial
court is improper, as is the case here, this is a challenge to the sentence itself. Therefore, Mr.
Wright’s objection on this point is overruled.
Second, Mr. Wright takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of his
arguments. Specifically, in her Report, the Magistrate Judge notes that Mr. Wright relies on the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), as the basis for his petition. Docket No. 3 at 2. Mr. Wright objects
that he is not solely relying on these Supreme Court decisions, and that he cites these cases, among
others, as references to establish his claim. Docket No. 5 at 4. The Court acknowledges that Mr.
Wright does cite to additional Supreme Court decisions, even though he primarily relies on Alleyne
and Apprendi. Even so, none of the cases cited by Mr. Wright remedy the fatal flaw in his petition.
A prisoner may only utilize 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge a federal criminal conviction where the
ground for review: (1) is based on a Supreme Court decision that applies retroactively on
collateral review and establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,

1

While 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is correctly used to attack the manner in which a sentence is being executed, 28 U.S.C. §
2255 provides the primary means for collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000).

Page 2 of 3

and (2) was foreclosed by applicable circuit law at the time it could have been asserted at trial, on
direct appeal or in a first motion to vacate filed pursuant to § 2255. Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d 893, 894 (5th Cir. 2001). Section 2241 may only be used to challenge a federal
conviction, not a federal sentence. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005);
Wesson v. U.S. Penientiary Beaumont TX, 305 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2002).

Because Petitioner is

attempting to use § 2241 to challenge his sentence, rather than his conviction, his ground for
review is not cognizable in this proceeding. Therefore, the Court also overrules this objection.

.

Having made a de novo review of the written objections filed by Mr. Wright in response to

the Report, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct. Accordingly,
Mr. Wright’s objections (Docket No. 5) are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the
findings and conclusions contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report in their entirety.
It is further ORDERED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
A final judgment will be rendered in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.
SIGNED this 18th day of December, 2017.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3