United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Stephen Carpenter, Petitioner pro se
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Stephen Carpenter's
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petition, Docket Entry 1. For the reasons set
forth below, the petition is dismissed for lack of
pled guilty to possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on August 20, 2013. Petition
¶ 6; Brief in Support at 1. He was sentenced on December
20, 2013 to 120-months imprisonment with a 10-year period of
supervised release. See United States v. Carpenter,
No. 5:13-cr-00059 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2013); Brief in Support
December 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to correct, vacate,
or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petition
¶ 10(a). The district court denied the motion, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a
certificate of appealability. Id. In November 2016,
he requested permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a
second § 2255 motion, but the Fifth Circuit denied that
request in January 2017. Id. ¶ 10(b). This
§ 2241 petition followed on May 8, 2017.
argues the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him
for possession of child pornography. He asks the Court to
release him from custody and to seal all court records
related to the criminal proceedings.
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
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). Petitioner
candidly states he is ...