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.

Renthh v. True

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 8, 2017

ANTHONY R. RENTH, Petitioner,
v.
B. TRUE, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, District Judge:

         Petitioner Anthony R. Renth filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Doc. 1) challenging the enhancement of his sentence as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He purports to rely on Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Now before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Doc. 11. Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 13.

         Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner waived his right to file a collateral attack.

         Relevant Facts and Procedural History

         Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine in the Southern District of Illinois. United States v. Renth, Case No. 13-cr-40024-JPG. He was sentenced to 204 months imprisonment.[1]

         Renth and the government entered into a written plea agreement which recited that his relevant conduct was more than 50 but less than 500 grams and the possible sentencing range was 10 to 30 years imprisonment, 6 years of supervised release, a fine of up to $2, 000, 000, and a $100 special assessment. Petitioner and the government agreed that it appeared that he would meet the Career Offender criteria and his initial offense level would therefore be 34 and that his criminal history would be Category VI. Petitioner and the government agreed that his sentencing range would be 188-235 months. A copy of the plea agreement is filed in this habeas case at Doc. 11, Ex. 1.[2]

         The plea agreement also contained a waiver of the right to appeal or file a collateral attack:

1. The Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, Defendant is waiving all appellate issues that might have been available if Defendant had exercised the right to trial. The Defendant is fully satisfied with the representation received from defense counsel. The Defendant acknowledges that the Government has provided complete discovery compliance in this case. The Defendant has reviewed the Government's evidence and has discussed the Government's case, possible defenses and defense witnesses with defense counsel.
2. The Defendant is aware that Title 18, Title 28, and other provisions of the United States Code afford every defendant limited rights to contest a conviction and/or sentence through appeal or collateral attack. However, in exchange for the recommendations and concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement, the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to contest any aspect of his conviction and sentence that could be contested under Title 18 or Title 28, or under any other provision of federal law, except that if the sentence imposed is in excess of the Sentencing Guidelines as determined by the Court (or any applicable statutory minimum, whichever is greater), the Defendant reserves the right to appeal the reasonableness of the sentence. The Defendant acknowledges that in the event such an appeal is taken, the Government reserves the right to fully and completely defend the sentence imposed, including any and all factual and legal findings supporting the sentence, even if the sentence imposed is ·more severe than that recommended by the Government.
3. Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal or bring collateral challenges shall not apply to: 1) any subsequent change in the interpretation of the law by the United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that is declared retroactive by those Courts and that renders the defendant actually innocent of the charges covered herein; and 2) appeals based upon Sentencing Guideline amendments that are made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission (see U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0). The Government reserves the right to oppose such claims for relief.

         Doc. 11, Ex. 1, pp. 7-8.

         On September 27, 2013, the Court found that the sentence range was 188 to 235 months and sentenced petitioner to 204 months imprisonment. Case No. 13-cr-40024-JPG, Doc. 75.

         Renth did not file a direct appeal or a motion under 28 ...


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.