United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
CHARLES R. ROBINSON, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Richard Mills United States District Judge.
R. Robinson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Illinois.
case was subsequently transferred to the Central District of
Illinois and is now before the Court.
United States of America concedes that the action is properly
brought under § 2241.
1999, Petitioner Charles R. Robinson was convicted of
possession of, intent to distribute and distribution of crack
cocaine. See United States v. Robinson, Case No.
97-30025. He was sentenced to serve 100 years imprisonment.
Petitioner's convictions and sentence were affirmed and
his collateral attacks were unsuccessful. In 2016, the
Petitioner's sentence was reduced to 30 years
imprisonment based on a retroactive sentencing guideline
habeas corpus petition, the Petitioner alleges that, pursuant
to Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) and
Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2013), his
imprisonment term should not have been enhanced under the
sentencing guidelines because his prior conviction for
attempted arson under Illinois law is neither a
“violent felony” nor “arson” and does
not qualify as a crime of violence pursuant to the career
offender guideline. Because he claims attempted arson cannot
be counted as one of the three “violent felony”
convictions necessary for a sentencing enhancement, the
Petitioner contends he does not qualify as a career offender.
federal prisoner may petition under § 2241 if his
section 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.” Brown, 719 F.3d at
586 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Three
conditions must be established in order for this exception to
apply. See id. The prisoner must first show that he
relies on a “statutory interpretation case, ” not
a constitutional one. See id. He must also show that
he relies on a retroactive decision that could not have been
invoked when he filed his § 2255 motion. See
id. Finally, the sentence enhancement must constitute a
sufficiently grave error to be deemed a miscarriage of
justice and thus be cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
See id. As noted, the Government concedes and the
Court agrees that the conditions are met and § 2241 is a
proper vehicle for the Petitioner to raise his claims.
time of sentencing, an individual was deemed a career
offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines if:
(1) [he] was at least eighteen years old at the time [he]
committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant
offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of
violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) [he] has
at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of
violence or a controlled substance.
§ 4B1.1(a). The Petitioner challenged only the third