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.

Thelen v. Cross

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 24, 2014

PATRICK THELEN, # XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES CROSS, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

Petitioner Patrick Thelen, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the sentence that was imposed following his federal jury trial in the Eastern District of Michigan on November 24, 1997. See United States v. Thelen, No. 97-cr-20015 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The instant petition was filed on February 20, 2014. It represents the most recent in petitioner's long line of challenges to his sentence and conviction.

Petitioner, once again, claims that new Supreme Court jurisprudence invalidates his classification as a "career offender" for sentencing purposes under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 4B1.1. This is certainly not the first time petitioner has made this argument. This time around, however, petitioner points to Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 881 (2014), a recent Supreme Court decision, in support of his argument that he is actually innocent of being a career offender (Doc. 1, p. 8).

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.

Background

Petitioner was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine[1]

(Count 1), possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine[2] (Count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm[3] (Count 3). See United States v. Thelen, Case No. 97-cr-20015 (E.D. Mich. 1997). On November 24, 1997, the district court sentenced petitioner following a jury trial to 30 years on Count 1, 37 years on Count 2, and 10 years on Count 3, to be served concurrently (Doc. 47 in criminal case). Petitioner received a sentencing enhancement for being a career offender, based on two predicate offenses: (1) a (disputed) November 25, 1986, Oklahoma marijuana conviction, and; (2) a November 3, 1988, Michigan marijuana conviction. Shortly after his sentence was imposed, petitioner's 1986 Oklahoma case was dismissed at the request of the State.

Since his federal sentencing, petitioner has filed numerous appeals concerning his 1997 sentencing and his 1986 Oklahoma case. Virtually none have been successful. The Sixth Circuit affirmed petitioner's guilty verdict on June 18, 1999. See United States v. Thelen, 182 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 1999). Petitioner then filed a § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence on June 14, 2000, which the district court denied on August 7, 2002 (Docs. 72 and 88 in criminal case). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's § 2255 motion on March 28, 2005. See Thelen v. United States, 131 F.Appx. 61 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 969 (2005).

Petitioner filed challenges to the disposition of the 1986 Oklahoma case in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits. He filed a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 7, 2009, in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Thelen v. Oklahoma, 2010 WL 1629078 (N.D. Ok. 2010) (Doc. 1). The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of that petition for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that petitioner was not in custody under his 1986 sentence. Thelen v. Oklahoma, 396 F.Appx. 489, 491 (10th Cir. 2010). The Tenth Circuit recommended that petitioner file a § 2255 petition in the Eastern District of Michigan. Id. Petitioner followed this recommendation, but the Sixth Circuit denied his second § 2255 motion on September 15, 2011 (Doc. 123 in criminal case).

Petitioner pursued relief under § 2241 in this district as well, by filing three § 2241 petitions before the instant petition.[4] See Thelen v. Sherrod, No. 10-cv-418 (S.D. Ill. 2010); Thelen v. Cross, No. 12-cv-80 (S.D. Ill. 2012); Thelen v. Cross, No. 13-cv-1172 (S.D. Ill. 2013).

In the first ("2010 petition"), petitioner challenged his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm. Thelen v. Sherrod, No. 10-cv-418 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (Doc. 1). The district court dismissed the 2010 petition, after finding that petitioner could have cured the alleged defect in his conviction by filing a § 2255 petition. Id. (Docs. 4, 9). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the § 2241 petition. Thelen v. Sherrod, No. 10-3268 (7th Cir. 2011).

In the second ("2012 petition"), petitioner maintained that he was actually innocent of being a career offender, and that the Bureau of Prisons unfairly aggregated his sentences. Thelen v. Cross, No. 12-cv-80 (S.D. Ill. 2012). The 2012 petition rested primarily on Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 530 U.S. 563 (2010), and other precedents stemming from Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), and Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009). That line of cases relate to mandatory minimum sentences and career offender sentences. This Court dismissed the 2012 petition on January 7, 2014. Id. (Doc. 78). Petitioner's appeal of the decision is currently pending. Thelen v. Cross, No. 14-1298 (7th Cir. 2014).

In the third ("2013 petition"), petitioner offered only a slight variation on the 2012 petition, citing more recent Supreme Court authority in support of his argument that he is actually innocent of being a career offender. Thelen v. Cross, No. 13-cv-1172 (S.D. Ill. 2013) (Doc. 1) (citing Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (June 17, 2013)). During its preliminary review of the 2013 petition, this Court noted that Alleyne is merely one more case in the line stemming from Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) and Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009). Further, the Supreme Court did not make Alleyne retroactive to cases on collateral review. Because the 2012 ...


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.