United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
STEVEN A. ZWEIGART, II, Petitioner,
B. TRUE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Steven A. Zweigart, II, 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
argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner
waived his right to file a collateral attack.
Facts and Procedural History
pleaded guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Manufacture
Methamphetamine in the Southern District of Illinois.
United States v. Zweigart, Case No. 12-cr-40103-JPG.
He was sentenced to 163 months imprisonment.
and the government entered into a written plea agreement. A
copy of the agreement is attached to Doc. 11 as Exhibit
Petitioner and the government agreed that it appeared that he
would meet the career offender criteria and his offense level
would therefore be 29 and that his criminal history would be
Category VI. Petitioner and the government agreed that his
sentencing range would be 155-188 months. Ex. 1, pp. 4-6.
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
Ex. 1, pp. 7-8.
August 15, 2013, the Court found that the Guidelines
sentencing range was 151 to 188 months and sentenced
petitioner to 163 months imprisonment. Transcript of
Sentencing Hearing, Doc. 11, Ex. 2.
filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that
his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to object
to the career offender enhancement because his Illinois
domestic battery convictions were not qualifying felonies and
that counsel had been ineffective in advising him to agree
that he was a career offender in the plea agreement. Doc. 11,
Ex. 7. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion and
denied a certificate of appealability. Ex. 8. However, the
Seventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability to
consider whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015), decided after petitioner's § 2255
motion was denied, affected the validity of his sentence. Ex.
9. The ...