United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER United States District Judge.
is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Previously, this matter was administratively
terminated as petitioner had not paid the filing fee nor had
he submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Thereafter, petitioner paid the filing fee
such that the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case.
argues in his habeas petition that his prior convictions do
not qualify him as a career offender under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, he claims that he is entitled to
resentencing. For the following reasons, the habeas petition
will be summarily dismissed.
pled guilty in 2013 to one count of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base and cocaine in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. He was sentenced to 235
months imprisonment. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
2014, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
Eastern District of Virginia. In October, 2015, the Eastern
District of Virginia denied petitioner's § 2255
motion. Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
April, 2017, petitioner filed this habeas petition. Citing to
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016);
United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir.
2016) and Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th
Cir. 2016), petitioner argues that he was improperly given a
career offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines
as his prior convictions did not qualify him as a career
offender. He requests that his sentence be vacated for
STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE SCREENING OF HABEAS PETITION
respect to screening the instant habeas petition, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243 provides in relevant part:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a
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
petitioner is proceeding pro se, his petition is
held to less stringent standards than those pleadings drafted
by lawyers. See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 198
(3d Cir. 2010) (“It is the policy of the courts to give
a liberal construction to pro se habeas petitions.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United
States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334 (3d Cir. 2007)
(“we construe pro se pleadings liberally.”)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S
.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). Nevertheless, “a
district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas]
summarily when it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court[.]”
Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996).