Pridgen v. J.S. WILLIS
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
ANTHONY B. PRIDGEN,
§
No. 97729-071,
Reg.
§
Petitioner,
§
§
v.
§
EP-16-CV-382-DCG
§
J. S. WILLIS, Warden,
Respondent.
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Anthony B. Pridgen challenges the execution of his sentence through apro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pridgen, a prisoner at the La Tuna
Federal Correctional Institution in Anthony, Texas,' claims Respondent J. S. Willis erroneously
denied him early release eligibility, after he participated in the Residential Drug Abuse Program,
"based on [an] inadequate inmate file."2 After reviewing the record, and for the reasons discussed
below, the Court finds that Pridgen is not entitled to relief.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Available court records show that on June 5, 2002, a jury in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina found Pridgen guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, five kilograms or more of cocaine, fifty kilograms
Anthony is located in El Paso County, Texas, which is within the Western District of
Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(3) (2012).
1
Unless otherwise indicated, "ECF No." refers
to the Electronic Case Filing number for documents docketed in this cause. Where a discrepancy
exists between page numbers on filed documents and page numbers assigned by the ECF system,
the Court will use the latter page numbers.
2
Pet'r's Pet. 4, Aug. 23. 2016, ECF No.
1.
-1-
C
or more of marijuana, and less than 100 grams of heroin.3 Because of a prior felony drug offense
conviction, Pridgen faced a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years. In addition,
the probation officer who prepared the presentence investigation report calculated Pridgen's base
offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines at 38 due to the quantity of drugs
attributed to
him.4
After adding two points for possessing a firearm, the probation officer
determined Pridgen's total guideline score was 40, criminal history I, resulting in a sentencing
range of 292-365
months.5
At his sentencing hearing, Pridgen objected to the two-level firearm
enhancement. "After hearing the case agent's testimony, which included his recounting
statements from numerous witnesses about occasions when Pridgen possessed a firearm, the
district court denied Pridgen's objection."6 The district court then sentenced Pridgen at the
bottom of the guideline range to 292 months' imprisonment.
Pridgen appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
his conviction and
sentence.7
Pridgen's co-defendants filed timely petitions for writ of certiorari
in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted their writs and remanded their cases to the
district court for further consideration in light of its holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
Am. J., Sept. 12, 2008, ECF No. 718, United States v. Pridgen, 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6
(D. S.C.).
Gov't's Mem. in Supp. 2, Apr. 30, 2012, ECF No. 1027-1, United States
v.
4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6 (D. S.C.).
Id.
at3.
61d
United States v. Gore, 102 F. App'x 292, 295 (4th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
-2-
Pridgen,
223 (2005).8 However, Pridgen's petition was untimely and was
Pridgen next filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
denied.9
2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence. "Rather than considering his §225 5 motion, the district court instead granted Pridgen a
Booker resentencing. The district court ordered a resentencing hearing, dismissing Pridgen's
other claims without prejudice to allow him to raise them at a later time."10 At the hearing, the
district court reduced Pridgen's sentence to 240 months' imprisonment. This sentence was the
mandatory minimum and not greater than the maximum permitted based on the facts found by the
jury. The amended judgment specifically stated "[a] 11 other provisions of sentence imposed on
10/30/02 remain as
the [18 U.S.C.]
§
imposed." "In explaining its sentence, the district court [said it] looked to
3553(a) factors in imposing the
sentence."12
Petitioner once again appealed, but
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court had no discretion to
Gore v. United States, 544 U.S. 958 (2005). See United States v. Gore, 195 F. App'x
145, 146 (4th Cir. 2006), on reh 'g 299 F. App'x 237 (4th Cir. 2008), as amended (Feb. 12, 2009)
("In Booker, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant is sentenced under a mandatory
guidelines scheme, '[amy fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a
sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury
verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.' 543
U.S. at 224, 125 S.Ct. 738. Thus, error under the Sixth Amendment occurs when the district court
imposes a sentence greater than the maximum permitted based on facts found by a jury or admitted
by the defendant. Id.").
Pridgen
v.
United States, 544 U.S. 934 (2005).
5, Apr. 30, 2012, ECF No. 1027-1, Un ited States v. Pridgen,
4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6 (D. S.C.) (citing United States v. Pridgen, 377 F. App'x 298, 299 (4th Cir.
10
Gov't's Mem. in Supp.
2010) (per curiam)).
" Am. J. 2, Sept. 12,2008, ECFNo. 718, United States v. Pridgen, 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6
(D. S.C.).
12
Pridgen, 377 F. App'x at 299.
-3-
sentence him below the twenty-year statutory mandatory minimum.13
On May 10, 2016, Pridgen asked the district court to issue a revised statement of reasons
for his reduced sentence without the reference to the firearm:
In 2008 ... I was resentenced ... during which an assessed 2pt.
enhancement for possession of a firearm was dismissed, and my
sentence was reduced from 294 months to 240 months.
Currently, I am being precluded from receiving early release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). I am enrolled in the
Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), and there is no update of
the Court's "revised" statement of reasons in my inmate file.
My humble request is for a statement of reasons reflecting the
changes made by this honorable Court during resentencing, and/or
any information relevant to dismissed gun enhancement.'4
Attached to Pridgen's letter was a Bureau of Prisons form BP-A0942, Request for
§
362 1(e)
Review. The form indicated that Pridgen was ineligible for early release because his current
conviction "involved the ... possession ... of a firearm
."
To date, the district court has not
responded to Pridgen's letter.
In his response to Pridgen's administrative
appeal,'6
Willis notes Bureau of Prisons
"Program Statement 5331.02, Early Release Procedures Under 18 U.S.C.
§
3621(e), provides that
inmates are ineligible for early release consideration if they have a current felony conviction for
13
Id.
14
Letter, May 15, 2016, ECF No. 1216, United States
v.
Pridgen, 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6
(D. S.C.).
15
Id.
16
Pet'r's Pet., Ex. 2, p. 2-3, Aug. 23, 2016, ECF No. 1-1.
El
'an offense that involved ... possession ... of a firearm
He further notes Petitioner's
presentence investigation report recommended a two-level sentencing enhancement because he
possessed a firearm.'8 Willis concludes Pridgen's prior conduct "will preclude early release."9
In his petition, Pridgen suggests the presentence investigation report should have been
amended at the time of his resentencing to delete the reference to the
firearm.2°
He argues his
file is incomplete, as "[t]he amended [judgment of conviction] does not accurately reflect the
court's removal of [the] gun enhancement."2'
He asks the Court to grant him "early release
eligibility."22
APPLICABLE LAW
A petitioner may attack the manner in which his sentence is being executed in the district
court with jurisdiction over his custodian pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
23
However, "[h] abeas
corpus relief is extraordinary and 'is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a
narrow range of injuries that ... if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage
'
18
'
ofjustice."24
To
Id. at 2 (quoting Program Statement 5331.02, p. 4).
Id.
id.
20
Pet'r's Pet. 4.
21
Id.
22
Id.,Ex. l,p.
at2.
1.
23
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver, 211
F.3d at 877; United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992).
24
Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States
955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992)).
-5-
v.
Vaughn,
prevail, a habeas corpus petitioner must show that he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United
States."25
Furthermore, a
§
2241 petition is subject to summary
dismissal if it appears from the face of the pleading that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief.26
ANALYSIS
Pridgen asserts Willis should have granted him early release eligibility after he participated
in the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. He suggests the presentence investigation
report should have been amended at the time of his resentencing to delete the reference to a
firearm.27
He argues his file is incomplete, as "[t]he amended [judgment of conviction] does not
accurately reflect the court's removal of [the] gun enhancement
,,28
The record does not support Pridgen's assertion. It shows that before Pridgen's original
sentencing, the probation officer recommend a two-level upward adjustment to his base offense
level for possessing a
firearm.29
Pridgen objected to the enhancement, but "[a]fter hearing the
case agent's testimony, which included his recounting statements from numerous witnesses about
occasions when Pridgen possessed a firearm, the district court denied Pridgen's
25
objection."3°
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (2012).
26
See Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary
dismissal under section 2241 without ordering an answer from respondent); see also Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (providing for summary
dismissal of habeas petition).
27
Pet'r's Pet., p. 4.
28
Id., p.2.
29
Gov't's Mem. in Supp. 3, Apr. 30, 2012, ECF No. 1027-1, United States
4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6 (D. S.C.).
30
Id.
v.
Pridgen,
The record also shows the district court subsequently reduced Pridgen's sentence to 240
months' imprisonment. This sentence was the mandatory minimum and was not greater than the
maximum permitted based on the facts found by the jury. The amended judgment specifically
states "[a]ll other provisions of sentence imposed on 10/30/02 remain as
imposed."3'
explaining its sentence, the district court [said it] looked to the [18 U.S.C.]
imposing the
sentence."32
§
"In
3553(a) factors in
To date, the district court has not responded to Pridgen's May 10,
2016, letter asking it to issue a revised statement of reasons for his reduced sentence which would
delete any reference to the firearm.
The record contains no indication that the district court removed the firearm enhancement
when it resentenced him.
Moreover, the threshold question in analyzing an alleged procedural due process violation
is whether the complained-of actionin this case the denial of early release
eligibilityimplicates or infringes upon a protected liberty interest.33 In the prison context, a
protected liberty interest may emanate from either the Due Process Clause or a statute.34
The Due Process Clause confers a protected liberty interest in punishment that is not
"'qualitatively different' from the punishment characteristically suffered by a person convicted of
'
Am. J. 2, Sept. 12,2008, ECF No. 718, United States v. Pridgen, 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-6
(D. S.C.).
32
Pridgen, 377 F. App'x at 299.
Meachum
v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-224 (1976).
Kentucky Dep't of Corrections
v.
Thompson, 109 S. Ct. 1904, 1908 (1989) (citation
omitted).
-7-
crime."35
So long as the action of a prison official is
"within the normal limits or range of
custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose," there is no violation of a
protected liberty interest conferred by the Due Process
Clause.36
The determination that Pridgen is not eligible for early release means only that he will
serve the remainder of his sentence under typical circumstances. Pridgen has not suffered a
punishment "qualitatively different' from the punishment characteristically suffered by a person
convicted of [a]
crime."37
A statute may also confer protected liberty interests, "[b]ut these interests will be generally
limited to freedom from restraint which ... nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship
on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."38 "The hallmark of a statute that
has not created a protected liberty interest is
discretion."39
Where a statute grants prison
administrators discretion, it confers no rights on an inmate.40 Thus, a "protected liberty interest
exists only when a statute uses 'mandatory language to place a substantive limit on official
discretion."4' A prisoner's unilateral expectation of certain treatment is insufficient; a prisoner
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 479 n. 4 (1995).
36
Id. at 484 (quoting Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225).
Richardson
38
v.
Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir.2007).
Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.
Richardson, 501 F.3d at 419.
40
41
Meachum, 427 U.S. at 226-28.
Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wottlin v. Fleming, 136
F.3d 1032, 1035 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 179 (5th
Cir. 1994))).
-8-
must "have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it."42
"After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the
Bureau of Prisons, has the responsibility for administering the
U.S.C.
§
sentence."43
According to 18
3621, "[t]he period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after
successfully completing a treatment program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such
reduction may not be more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve."44
"When an eligible prisoner successfully completes drug treatment, the Bureau thus has the
authority, but not the duty, both to alter the prisoner's conditions of confinement and to reduce his
term of imprisonment."45 Because Congress granted the Bureau of Prisons broad discretion by
statute, Pridgen does not have a protected statutory liberty interest in his early release from prison
upon completion of the treatment program.46
Pridgen has not met his burden of showing that he is "in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
42
States."47
He is not entitled to
§
2241 relief.
Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1995).
"
See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a) ("A
person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. . . shall be committed to the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons until the expiration of the term imposed")); 28 C.F.R. § 0.96 ("The Director
of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or
duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment,
control, or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with
or convicted of offenses against the United States ...").
'' 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) (2012) (emphasis added).
Lopezv. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001).
46
''
Id.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (2012).
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
The Court concludes that it appears from the face of Pridgen's petition that he is not
entitled to
§
2241 relief Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders:
IT IS ORDERED that Pridgen's pro se petition under 28 U.S.C.
§
2241 for a writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED and his cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this
I'?
day of September, 2016.
C. GUADERRAMA
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-10-
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?