Hughes v. Wilson
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/03/2014. (tjoh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Richmond Division
RICHMOND, VA
KENNETH BRONSON HUGHES,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No.
v.
3:13CV566
ERIC WILSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenneth Bronson Hughes,
a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 22411 petition ("§ 2241 Petition").2
In
his
sentence
is
decision
in
§
2241
Petition,
unconstitutional
in
Hughes
light
of
contends
the
that
Supreme
his
Court's
1 That statute provides, in pertinent part:
(c)
The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a
prisoner unless—
(1)
He is in custody under or by color of the
authority of the United States or is committed for
trial before some court thereof;
(2)
He is
in pursuance
process,
judgment or decree of a court or judge of
the United States;
(3)
He
is
Constitution
States
28 U.S.C.
or
in custody for an act done or omitted
of an Act of Congress, or an order,
or
in
or
custody
laws
or
in
violation
treaties
of
the
of
the
United
....
§ 2241(c)(l)-(3).
2 The United States District Court for the Western District
of Virginia Court
(''Sentencing Court") convicted Hughes of
conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and
distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base and sentenced
him to 334 months of imprisonment.
See Hughes v. United States,
No. 7:05CV00495, 2006 WL 27696, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2006).
By Order entered on January 4, 2006, the Sentencing Court denied
a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 Motion filed by Hughes.
See id. at *4.
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) .3
For reasons
set forth below, the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
I.
Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Compared
To Petitions Under 28 U.S.C.
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
means
of
collateral
conviction
court.
and
See
attack
sentence
Pack v.
and
§ 2255 provides the primary
on
the
must
be
filed
218
F.3d
448,
Yusuff,
§ 2241
imposition
of
with
451
a
the
federal
sentencing
(5th Cir.
2000)
(quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Pet. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th
Cir.
1990)).
A
federal
inmate may not proceed under 28
U.S.C.
§ 2241 unless he or she demonstrates that the remedy afforded by
28
U.S.C.
§
2255
"is
inadequate
legality of his detention."
or
ineffective
to
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).4
test
the
For example,
"attacks on the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a
§ 2241 petition."
1997)
(citing
In re Vial,
Bradshaw
3 In Alleyne,
the
v.
115 F.3d 1192,
Story,
86
Supreme Court
F.3d
1194 n.5
164,
addressed
166
(4th Cir.
(10th
Cir.
a defendant's
mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for brandishing a
firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
Alleyne, 133 S. Ct.
2155-56.
The
Supreme Court held that,
other than prior
convictions, "facts that increase [statutory] mandatory minimum
sentences must be submitted to the jury." Id. at 2163.
4 "This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as
the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed by § 2255."
Wilson v. Wilson, No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 WL 1245671, at
*3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328,
333
(4th Cir.
2000)).
1996);
Hanahan
1982)).
v.
Luther,
Nevertheless,
693
the
F.2d
629,
United States
632
Court
the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the
§ 2255 is not
an
n.l
(7th
Cir.
of Appeals
for
remedy afforded by
rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because
individual
has
been
unable
to
obtain
relief
under
that
provision or because an individual is procedurally barred from
filing a § 2255 motion."
The
Fourth Circuit
Id. (citations omitted).
has
stressed that an inmate may proceed
under § 2241 to challenge his
circumstances."
Cir.
2008)
omitted).
as
conviction "in only very limited
United States v.
(citation
Poole,
omitted)
531
F.3d 263,
(internal
269
quotation
(4th
marks
The "controlling test," id., in the Fourth Circuit is
follows:
[Section]
2255
is
inadequate
and
ineffective
the legality of a conviction when:
to
test
(1) at the time of
conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme
Court established the legality of the conviction; (2)
subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first
§ 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that
the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is
deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot
satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because
the new rule is not one of constitutional
In
re
Jones,
added).
remedy
which
The
for
an
226
F.3d
Fourth
the
Circuit
"fundamental
individual
criminal but,
328,
is
333-34
(4th
formulated
defect
through no fault of his
this
for
2000)
test
by
a
conduct
[or her]
Id. at 333 n.3
3
Cir.
presented
incarcerated
has no source of redress."
law.
own,
to
(emphasis
provide
situation
that
[he
is
a
in
not
or she]
(emphasis added).
II.
Analysis Of Hughes's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Hughes fails to satisfy the second prong of In re Jones.
See
In
re
Jones,
226
Hughes
fails to demonstrate
Specifically,
[his]
direct
appeal
F.3d
and
328,
[his]
334
first
(4th
Cir.
2000).
that "subsequent to
§ 2255
motion,
substantive law changed such that the conduct of which [he]
convicted is deemed not to be
The
conduct
of
which
Hughes
distribute and possess with
more of cocaine base,
F.
Aug.
App'x
1,
provide
basis
Chandler,
the
551
decision
2241
in Alleyne
petition
cocaine
base
and
218
reach
the
savings
only their sentence."
in
under
a
convictions
to
precedent
Alsop
v.
for
cocaine
. not
to
Poole,
531 F.3d at 267 n.7
Accordingly,
(concluding
filing
distribution
clause
226 F.3d at 333-34).
those
.
to
basis
for
.
(4th Cir.
fails
2014)
distribute
has
No.
2241);
Cir.
provide
to
or
Alleyne
§
(5th
at *1
to
grams
See Mabry v. Wilson,
decision
conspiracy
"Fourth Circuit
Jones,
fails
conspiracy
to distribute five
relief
217,
challenging
Moreover,
of
the
was
(emphasis added).
2014 WL 3766729,
seeking
F. App'x
Id.
convicted,
remains a crime.
(concluding
for
stands
intent
, 14-6430,
2014)
criminal."
the
§
of
base).
extended the
petitioners
challenging
(citing In re
the Court will dismiss
Hughes's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for want of jurisdiction.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
this
Memorandum
Opinion to Hughes.
Robert E.
Isl
Payne
je>*f
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: d^ci^^^
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?