Sexton v. United States of America
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, DISMISSES the 1 Section 2241 Petition and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/19/2016. (cc: Petitioner and counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
JULIOUS SEXTON,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-26979
BART MASTERS, WARDEN,
FCI McDowell
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of
proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) for disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 2).
Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her PF&R on
August 5, 2016, in which she recommended that the Court dismiss
the petition and remove this matter from its docket.
23).
(Doc. No.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were
allotted fourteen days in which to file any objections to
Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R.
The failure of any party to
file such objections within the time allotted constitutes a
waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
Neither
party filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R within
the required time period.
The United States District Court for the District of
Maryland sentenced Petitioner Julious Sexton to 180 months’
imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
v. Sexton, No. 1:10-cr-363, Dkt. No. 33 at 2—3.
United States
Sexton’s
sentence was increased based on the district court’s finding
that Sexton was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
In seeking a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner Sexton
challenged the district court’s finding that he is an armed
career criminal under the ACCA. (Doc. No. 1).
Sexton petitioned this Court to vacate his sentence and
resentence him without an enhancement under the ACCA. The United
States Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S.
___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), which invalidated the ACCA’s
“residual clause” as unconstitutionally vague under the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Johnson’s wake, Sexton
filed an Emergency Consent Motion to Correct Sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland on December 29, 2015.
Dkt. No. 38.
Sexton, 1:10-cr-363,
The federal district court in Maryland granted
Sexton’s § 2255 motion and decreased his sentence to seventyseven months’ imprisonment.
Id., Dkt. No. 39.
Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Eifert, in her PF&R, is entirely correct that
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has already accorded the relief requested by Sexton: decreasing
his sentence.
Sexton’s resentencing has left this Court without a “case
or controversy” to decide since, “by virtue of an intervening
event, [we] cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ in
favor of the appellant.” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150
(1996) (per curiam) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653
(1895)).
The limits on our Article III jurisdiction render it
abundantly clear that when “there is no wrong to remedy,” the
case is moot.
United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th
Cir. 2008); see also Stewart v. Hickey, No. 1:06-114, 2009 WL
261419, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 3, 2009) (noting that habeas
petition becomes moot where habeas court has no remedy to accord
petitioner).
“[F]ederal courts may not give opinions upon moot
questions or abstract propositions.”
Calderon, 518 U.S. at 149.
And in this case, because Sexton’s “requisite personal interest”
in this litigation has disappeared, this matter retains only
moot questions.
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997).
Consequently, Sexton’s petition before
this court must be, and now is, dismissed.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Eifert’s
PF&R, DISMISSES the petition, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove
this matter from the docket of the Court.
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
A
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2253(c)(2).
28 U.S.C. §
The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336—38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683—84 (4th Cir. 2001).
The court concludes that the governing
standard is not satisfied in this instance.
Accordingly, the
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2016.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
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?