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. Petitioner 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 2009 to one count of conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute narcotics in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2010,
he was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment.
2014, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
District of Maryland. In August, 2016, the District of
Maryland denied petitioner's § 2255 motion.
Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. However, in
September, 2016, he filed a request with the Fourth Circuit
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Fourth
Circuit denied that request in September, 2016.
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
As 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] petition
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).
seeks to have this Court review the criminal judgment and
sentence entered by the District of Maryland in this §
2241 habeas petition. Generally, a challenge to the validity
of a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See Jackman v. Shartle, 535
F.App'x 87, 88 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Okereke v.
United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). This
is generally true because § 2255 prohibits a district
court from entertaining a challenge to a prisoner's
federal sentence through § 2241 unless the remedy under
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Indeed, § 2255(e)
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such a
court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the