United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Petitioner Robert Mangine filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Doc. 1) challenging the application of the Career Offender Enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He relies on Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). Now before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 14. Petitioner filed responses to the motion at Docs. 16 and 17.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
Petitioner was convicted in the Northern District of Iowa of felon in possession of a firearm, two counts of drug distribution, conspiracy, and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. In September, 2001, he was sentenced to a total of 420 months imprisonment. The sentence consists of concurrent sentences on the drug distribution, conspiracy and felon in possession counts totaling 360 months, followed by a consecutive 60 month sentence on the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense count. United States v. Mangine , Case No. 6:00-cr-2005-LRR, Doc. 153 (N.D. Iowa, September 18, 2001).
The sentencing court applied the Career Offender Enhancement, U.S.S.G. §4B1.1. At issue here is the use of petitioner's Florida burglary conviction as a predicate conviction. Doc. 1, p. 2.
Mangine filed a direct appeal. He did not raise an issue regarding the application of §4B1.1. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Mangine, 302 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2002). He did not file a petition for certiorari.
In 2014, Mangine filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. Citing Descamps, he argued that his Florida burglary conviction was improperly categorized as a crime of violence for purposes of §4B1.1 enhancement. The §2255 motion was dismissed as untimely. Doc. 14, Ex. 2.
In February, 2015, Mangine filed the §2241 petition currently before the Court. He argues that his Florida burglary conviction should not have been used to apply the Career Offender enhancement because the Florida burglary statue is both broader than generic burglary and is a divisible statute, requiring the application of the "modified categorical approach." He argues that he is entitled to bring a §2241 petition because Decamps announced a new rule which should be applied retroactively.
Applicable Legal Standards
Generally, petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 may not be used to raise claims of legal error in conviction or sentencing, but are limited to challenges regarding the execution of a sentence. See, 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 28 U.S.C. §2255 in the court which sentenced him. A §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).
A prisoner is generally limited to only one challenge of his conviction and sentence under §2255. A prisoner may not file a "second or successive" motion unless a panel of the appropriate court of appeals certifies that such motion contains either 1) newly discovered evidence "sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, " or 2) "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. §2255(h).
It is possible, under very limited circumstances, for a prisoner to challenge his federal conviction or sentence under §2241. 28 U.S.C. §2255(e) contains a "savings clause" which authorizes a federal prisoner to file a §2241 petition where the remedy under §2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See, United States v. Prevatte, 300 F.3d 792, 798-99 (7th Cir.2002). "A procedure for postconviction relief can be fairly termed inadequate when it is so configured as to deny a convicted defendant any opportunity for judicial rectification of so fundamental a defect in his conviction as having been imprisoned for a nonexistent offense." In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir 1998)(emphasis in original).
The Seventh Circuit has explained that, in order to fit within the savings clause following Davenport, a petitioner must meet three conditions. First, he must show that he relies on a new statutory interpretation case rather than a constitutional case. Secondly, he must show that he relies on a decision that he could not have invoked in his first §2255 motion and that case must apply retroactively. Lastly, he must demonstrate that there has been a "fundamental defect" in his conviction or sentence that is grave enough to be deemed a ...