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.

Andrew Patterson v. Ricardo Rios

April 14, 2011

ANDREW PATTERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
RICARDO RIOS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

Friday, 15 April, 2011 08:47:42 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

Now before the Court is Petitioner Andrew Patterson's ("Patterson") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Brought by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition [#1] is DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND

On December 6, 1995, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois returned a Superseding Indictment in which Patterson was charged with one count of racketeering conspiracy (Count One), one count of drug trafficking conspiracy (Count Two), one count of use or carry of a firearm during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence (Count Three), and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm (Counts Four and Five). Count Three of the indictment charged:

Beginning in or about October 25, 1991, and continuing through January 28, 1992, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ANDREW PATTERSON also know as "Bay-Bay," defendant herein, used and carried five firearms, namely: a Central Arms Company 12-gauge, short-barreled shotgun, serial number 87317; a Charter Arms .38 caliber handgun, model Undercover, serial number 63224; a Vesta .380 caliber handgun, serial number 128082; a Davis Industries .380 caliber handgun, model P380, serial number AP177022; a Harrington and Richardson .32 caliber handgun, model 732, serial number obliterated; each on a separate occasion and each being during and in relation to the commission of a drug trafficking crime for which the defendant may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, as more fully set forth in Count Two of this indictment;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1) and Section 2.

Count Five of the indictment charged:

On or about October 25, 1991, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ANDREW PATTERSON, also know as "Bay-Bay" defendant herein, having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, knowingly possessed a firearm, namely, a Central Arms Company 12-gauge, short-barreled shotgun, serial number 87317, which had been transported in interstate commerce;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1) and Section 2.

In January 1996, a jury trial commenced and lasted for almost 20 weeks. At the conclusion of the trial, Patterson was found guilty on Counts One, Two, Three, and Five. The jury returned a special verdict in which it stated that one of the firearms Patterson used and carried during and in relation to the drug trafficking offense was a Central Arms Company 12-gauge, short-barreled shotgun, serial number 87317. Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment on Counts One and Two, 120 months on Count Three to run consecutively with the life sentence, and 120 months on Count Five to run concurrently with the life sentence. His sentence was subsequently reduced to 324 months on Counts One and Two pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 on January 23, 2009.

Patterson directly appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the district judge's jury-selection process. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Seventh Circuit, on remand, once again affirmed Patterson's conviction and sentence. On October 1, 2001, the Supreme Court denied Patterson's petition for writ of certiorari. Patterson brought a timely motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Northern District of Illinois on September 19, 2002, claiming: 1) there was no evidence of an agreement between Patterson or any other defendant to carry out a RICO violation or scheme, 2) he was deprived of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a valid indictment, 3) trial counsel committed prejudicial error by failing to object to the prosecution's use of illegally obtained phone tapes, and 4) trial counsel failed to object to the jury instructions on RICO, bribery, and the prosecution's failure to inform the jury of sentencing reductions as to other defendants. His § 2255 motion was denied as was a certificate of appealability. He appealed the denial, and the Seventh Circuit dismissed it. In 2007, Patterson filed a motion for relief from judgment in his criminal case, arguing that an illegal sentence was imposed on him on Count Five, and that the judgment against him was otherwise void. The Northern District construed it as a § 2255 Motion and denied it as untimely. He then proceeded to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in the Central District of Illinois, claiming that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to impose a life sentence on Count Five. The court determined that Patterson's § 2241 petition was really a § 2255 motion and denied it as untimely.

Most recently, Patterson filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to §2241, arguing: 1) that this Court has jurisdiction to consider his § 2241 petition because he meets the "savings clause" of § 2255 by demonstrating that § 2255 is neither adequate nor effective to address his new claims, and 2) that his conviction under § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the jury was prohibited from considering all the elements of ...


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.