Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lawrence Maher v. Warden J.T. Shartle

September 13, 2011

LAWRENCE MAHER, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN J.T. SHARTLE, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kugler, District Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner Lawrence Maher ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton, New Jersey, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition, and it is not in the interest of justice to transfer, the Court will dismiss the petition.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the petition and relevant court opinions. On April 6, 2005, Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline 4B1.1 by the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Petitioner alleges that the court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because one of the predicate offenses used by the court was a 1997 Massachusetts state court conviction for which his sentence was suspended.

On November 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion with the District Court of Maine under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, which included "his counsel's failure to object to his 21 U.S.C. § 851 sentencing enhancement based on the information which listed a 1997 Massachusetts Class D drug offense judgment", as a ground for relief. The court denied Petitioner's motion on July 25, 2008. On July 27, 2009, Petitioner filed a "motion requesting to modify an imposed term of imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), predicated upon another modifying statute (28 U.S.C. § 2255)" with the District Court of Maine. That motion was denied on August 11, 2009. Petitioner appealed the District Court's denial to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court's decision. A petition for writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court was denied on November 15, 2010. On December 1, 2010, Petitioner sought permission from the First Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2255 petition. His request was denied on January 19, 2011, with the court noting the following:

Petitioner's sentence as a career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §4B1.2, was not in error. Even though the sentence for one of predicate convictions used to establish his career offender status was suspended, the offense was "punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year" and, hence, was a "controlled substance offense" as defined in section 4B1.1. The fact that the suspended sentence would not have constituted a "sentence of imprisonment" for the purposes of computing criminal history under section 4A1.1 is not relevant to the determination of career offender status in section 4B1.1. Maher v. United States, No. 10-2440 (1st Cir. January 19, 2011).

On March 7, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner argues that the United States District Court of Maine "committed plain error when they sentenced him as a career offender pursuant to 4B1.1 as defined by 4A1.2(b)(2) and 4A1.2(b) Note 2." Specifically, Petitioner argues that his suspended state court sentence was incorrectly used to enhance his federal sentence. Petitioner requests that this Court grant his § 2241 petition, on the grounds that § 2255 has proven itself "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention." Relying on a Massachusetts district court case, Goldman v. Winn, 565 F.Supp. 2d 200 (D.Mass. 2008), he argues that a claim of "actual innocence" of the facts underlying the conviction or sentence is sufficient to render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

"Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements." McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must "specify all the grounds for relief" and set forth "facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c) (amended Dec. 1, 2004), applicable to § 2241 petitions through Habeas Rule 1(b). A court presented with a petition for writ of habeas corpus "shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled there." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Thus, "[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face." McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856; see also United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985).

Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides in relevant part: "The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless- . . . He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). As a result of the practical difficulties encountered in hearing a challenge to a federal sentence in the district of confinement rather than the district of sentence, in its 1948 revision of the Judicial Code, Congress established a procedure whereby a federal prisoner might collaterally attack his sentence in the sentencing court.*fn1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1974); Hayman, 342 U.S. at 219.

Section 2255 provides in relevant part:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution." Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). This is because ยง 2255 expressly prohibits a district court from entertaining a challenge to a prisoner's federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.