Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Bond v. Cross

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 11, 2014

WALTER BOND, No. 04698-025, Petitioner,
JAMES N. CROSS, Respondent.


DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.

Petitioner Walter Bond, currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Greenville, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks to challenge his sentence, arguing that his prior conviction for burglary of a commercial building would not qualify as a predicate offense for purposes of a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.[1]

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule 4 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, such as this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After carefully reviewing the petition, the Court concludes that this action is subject to dismissal.

Procedural History

Walter Bond pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a 160-month term of imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to a 107-month term. United States v. Bond, Case No. 99-cr-30032-WDS (S.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2000). A direct appeal was filed and, according to the petition, voluntarily withdrawn.

In September 2000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Bond filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and attacking his career offender designation, among other things. More specifically, Bond challenged the Court's fact-specific inquiry when deciding to use his conviction for aggravated battery for the career offender designation. The Section 2255 motion was denied. In pertinent part, the Court concluded that aggravated battery and residential burglary are "crimes of violence" under the terms of Guidelines Section 4B1.2 and the results would not have been different if a fact-specific inquiry had been erroneously used. See Bond v. United States, Case No. 00-cv-726-WDS (S.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2000). Bond did not appeal the denial of his Section 2255 motion.

Bond filed the subject petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 22, 2014 (Doc. 1).

The Habeas Petition

In the instant petition, Bond challenges the sentencing court's determination that his prior conviction for a burglary of a commercial building (or aggravated battery, as the case may be) qualified as a predicate offense, triggering the "career offender" enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Petitioner maintains that the sentencing court used the "modified categorical" approach when it made the determination that the prior conviction qualified as a predicate offense. Citing the United States Supreme Court's decision in Descamp v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), Bond contends that use of the "modified categorical" approach was error and his prior conviction should not have been used to enhance his present sentence.

Furthermore, relying on Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013), petitioner asserts that he may bring this claim under the "savings clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) because Descamp establishes that he is actually innocent of this non-qualifying enhancement (Doc. 1, p. 6).


As a general matter, "28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provide federal prisoners with distinct forms of collateral relief. Section 2255 applies to challenges to the validity of convictions and sentences, whereas Section 2241 applies to challenges to the fact or duration of confinement." Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644, 645 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2000)). See also Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012); Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998).

A federally convicted person may challenge his conviction and sentence by bringing a motion pursuant to Section 2255 in the court that sentenced him. Indeed, a Section 2255 motion is ordinarily the "exclusive means for a federal prisoner to attack his conviction." Kramer v. Olson, 347 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 2003).

Under very limited circumstances, however, a prisoner may employ Section 2241 to challenge his federal conviction or sentence. Section 2255(e) contains a "savings clause" which authorizes a federal prisoner to file a Section 2241 petition where the remedy under Section 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Hill, 695 F.3d at 648 ("Inadequate or ineffective' means that a legal theory that could not have been presented under § 2255 establishes the petitioner's actual innocence.'") ...

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.