Thomas, Jacobie v. Williams, Louis
ORDER dismissing petitioner Jacobie Thomas's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/11/2018. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JACOBIE L. THOMAS,
OPINION & ORDER
LOUIS WILLIAMS, II,
Federal prisoner Jacobie Thomas has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges a “career offender” sentencing enhancement he received under
§ 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which applies under certain circumstances
when a defendant has two prior felony convictions for a “crime of violence” or a “controlled
substance offense.” Thomas contends that his prior conviction for residential burglary in
Illinois under 720 ILCS 5/19–3 does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under United States v.
Mathis, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), so he does not qualify as a career offender.
The petition is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. (This rule also may be applied to habeas petitions not brought
under § 2254, such as this petition pursuant to § 2241. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254
Cases). Under Rule 4, I must dismiss the petition if it plainly appears from the petition that
petitioner is not entitled to relief; otherwise, I will order respondent to file an answer. See also
28 U.S.C. § 2243 (habeas court must award writ or order respondent to show cause why writ
should not be granted, unless application makes it clear that petitioner is not entitled to relief).
I will dismiss Thomas’s petition for two reasons, one procedural and one substantive.
First, under Hawkins v. United States, 724 F.3d 915, 916 (7th Cir. 2013), “an error in calculating
a defendant's guidelines sentencing range does not justify postconviction relief unless the
defendant [was] sentenced in the pre-Booker era, when the guidelines were mandatory rather
than merely advisory.” See also United States v. Coleman, 763 F.3d 706, 708–09 (7th Cir. 2014)
(recognizing that Hawkins is “the law of this circuit”). Thomas was sentenced in 2010, several
years after the Supreme Court held that the guidelines are advisory in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), so Hawkins bars his claim.
Second, even if Thomas could bring a § 2241 petition to challenge an enhancement
under the sentencing guidelines, his claim would fail on the merits. In Smith v. United States,
877 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2017), the court held that a violation of 720 ILCS 5/19-3 qualifies as
a violent felony for the purpose of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 1 Because a “violent felony” under the ACCA and a “crime of violence”
under the sentencing guidelines have the same definition, Prevatte v. Merlak, 865 F.3d 894, 900
(7th Cir. 2017), the holding in Smith applies to Thomas’s claim as well.
Under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. But
“federal prisoners proceeding under § 2241 need not obtain a certificate of appealability,”
Sanchez-Rengifo v. Caraway, 798 F.3d 532, 535 n.3 (7th Cir. 2015), so I do not need to decide
whether Thomas is entitled to a certificate.
Smith applies to individuals convicted under post-1982 versions of the Illinois statute. Thomas
does not say in his petition when he was convicted of burglary, but the decision denying his
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 shows that he was charged with burglary in 2000. Thomas v.
United States, No. 16-2056, 2016 WL 4596342, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016).
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Jacobie Thomas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED.
Entered January 11, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
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?