Mackey v. United States Of America
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 8/11/2014. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
EVARISTUS MACKEY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:14CV00373
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Evaristus Mackey, Pro Se Petitioner.
The pro se petitioner, Evaristus Mackey, an inmate at the United States
Penitentiary in this judicial district, has filed a motion that he styled as “Motion
For Discharge & Release Under 18 U.S.C. § 3569.” 1 After review of the record, I
construe his submission as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. I find that it must be summarily dismissed as without merit.
Mackey was convicted in 2001 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, and was sentenced to 327 months in prison.
His
current petition alleges that when he recently obtained access to the sealed
Statement of Reasons from that sentencing, he discovered that, instead of prison
time, he could have opted for three years of supervised release and a fine, to be
1
I find no such statute in the United States Code and cannot determine what other
statute Mackey may have intended to cite.
paid in monthly installments. He asserts that since his attorney did not inform him
of this fine, he made no payments, went into default, and was sent to prison,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3614. He now asserts that he can prove his inability to pay
the fine and thereby avoid imprisonment under § 3614, so the court should order
his release.
Mackey’s own submissions do not support his claim. The Statement of
Reasons indicates that under the federal sentencing guidelines, Mackey could have
been sentenced to all of the following: 262 to 327 months in prison; 3 to 5 years of
supervised release; a fine between $17,500 and $175,000; monthly charges of
$1800.11 for the costs of imprisonment; and monthly charges of $243.98 for the
costs of his supervised release. The court found that Mackey’s prior convictions
for armed robbery indicated that a prison sentence at the high end of the custody
range was appropriate. The court did not impose any fine or charge Mackey with
paying the costs of his imprisonment or supervision, because the Court found him
to have insufficient assets.
The court had no authority to offer Mackey an alternative sentence of
supervised release and fine payments instead of the prison sentence imposed within
the applicable guideline range. Thus, Mackey’s petition provides no factual basis
for relief from his sentence of imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“The writ of
habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in
-2-
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”) Therefore, I
must summarily dismiss his petition as without merit.
A separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: August 11, 2014
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
-3-
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?