United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Rasheen Mines, Petitioner pro se
B. SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge.
Mines, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fairton, New
Jersey, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking the Court to
resentence him without the career offender sentencing
enhancement. Petition, Docket Entry 1. For the reasons
expressed below, this Court will dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
convicted Petitioner and his co-defendants of conspiracy to
violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a),
(b)(1), and (b)(3), and the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1952(a)(2), (a)(3)(B), (b) and (2); substantive
violations of the Hobbs Act and the Travel Act; brandishing a
firearm in connection with a crime of violence under 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and (2); and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, under 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) and (2). See Amended Judgment, United
States v. Mines, Cr. No. 06–126–JBS–4
(D.N.J. entered May 1, 2007), Docket Entry 147 at 1.
Petitioner received a prison sentence of 480 months.
Id. at 2. The Third Circuit affirmed the
conviction and sentence. United States v. Hernandez,
306 F. App'x 719, 723 (3d Cir. 2009). The U.S. Supreme
Court denied certiorari. Mines v. United States, 558
U.S. 905 (2009).
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 7, 2010 raising
various ineffective assistance of counsel claims. This Court
denied the motion. Mines v. United States, No.
10-5163, 2013 WL 6187185, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 26, 2013),
certificate of appealability denied, No. 14-4059 (3d
Cir. June 8, 2015). Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) requesting permission to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion. In re: Rasheen
Mines, No. 16-2545 (3d Cir. stayed May 26,
2016). Petitioner argued his sentence was
unconstitutional due to the Supreme Court’s new
decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015)(holding residual clause of Armed Career Criminal
Act (“ACCA”) was void for vagueness).
filed the instant petition on June 16, 2017. He argues that
his state court burglary conviction is broader than the
generic burglary charge, meaning he can no longer be
considered a career offender due to the Supreme Court’s
decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243
(2016) (holding a prior conviction does not qualify as the
generic form of a predicate violent felony offense listed in
the ACCA if an element of the crime of conviction is broader
than an element of the generic offense). He asks the Court to
resentence him without the career offender designation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
brings this petition as a pro se litigant. The Court has an
obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and to hold
them to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 655
F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept. 19,
2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting
submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of
tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney Gen., 878 F.2d 714,
721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley,
414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399
U.S. 912 (1970).
a federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers
v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition
of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but
the execution of his sentence.” Coady v.
Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). 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) (per
curiam) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). “[Section] 2255 expressly
prohibits a district court from considering a challenge to a
prisoner's federal sentence under § 2241 unless the
remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.’”
Snyder v. Dix, 588 F. App’x 205, 206 (3d Cir.
2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); see also In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997).
§ 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where
the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation or procedure
would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a
full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention
claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d
536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “Section
2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the
sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute
of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to
meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of . . . §
2255.” Id. at 539 (citations omitted).