United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Baron Hoskins (Petitioner) filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
enhancement of his sentence as a Career Offender under
U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. (Doc.
He purports to rely on Mathis v. United States, 136
S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Id. Now before the Court is
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 14). Petitioner responded to
the motion at Doc. 17.
argues the petition must be dismissed because Petitioner
waived his right to file a collateral attack. (Doc. 14).
Facts and Procedural History
pled guilty in the Northern District of Iowa to conspiracy to
distribute more than five grams of cocaine base within 1, 000
feet of a protected location. United States v.
Hoskins, Case No. CR 08-1001-1-LRR (N.D. Iowa); (Doc.
14, Ex. C). The district court initially sentenced Petitioner
to 262 months, and then subsequently reduced the sentence to
188 months. (See Judgment in criminal case, Doc. 41;
Amended Judgment, Doc. 49).
executed a “Waiver of Appeal” in connection with
his guilty plea. (Doc. 33 in criminal case). The agreement
contained a waiver of the right to appeal or file a
To induce the government into accepting the provisions of
this plea agreement, to avoid a trial, and to have this
proceeding finally concluded, I voluntarily and knowingly
waive my rights under this statute to appeal or contest,
directly or collaterally, the sentence.
Further, I waive all rights to contest the conviction or
sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including actions
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 or 2241. I consent to
sentencing without any right of appeal or post-conviction
proceeding except if the court finds that the United States
has violated this plea agreement or if the sentence is not in
accordance with the plea agreement, is imposed in excess of
the maximum penalty provided by statute, or is
Id. Petitioner filed an interlocutory appeal from
the sentencing court, contesting the court's denial of a
reduction in his sentence. (Doc. 54 in criminal case). The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the
judgment. (Doc. 57 in criminal case).
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016),
Petitioner argues that his prior state convictions do not
qualify as violent offenses or controlled substance offenses
for purposes of the Career Offender enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. It is unnecessary to consider the
substantive merits of his argument because the Waiver of
Appeal bars this collateral attack.
is no doubt a plea agreement may include a valid waiver of
the right to appeal and to file a collateral attack, and that
such waivers are generally enforceable, with limited
exceptions. Solano v. United States, 812 F.3d 573,
577 (7th Cir. 2016). The limited exceptions are where the
plea agreement itself was involuntary, the defendant argues
ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the
negotiation of the plea, the sentencing court relied on a
constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, or the
sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Keller v. United
States, 657 F.3d 675, 681 (7th Cir. 2011). A waiver of
the right to bring a collateral attack on a conviction or
sentence bars a § 2241 petition; the waiver does not
make the remedy afforded by § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective so as to open the door to a § 2241 petition.
Muse v. Daniels, 815 F.3d 265, 266 (7th Cir. 2016).
Further, a subsequent change in the law does not render an
appeal waiver involuntary. United States v. Vela,
740 F.3d 1150, 1151 (7th Cir. 2014).
Seventh Circuit has enforced appeal waivers against
challenges to career offender designations. United States
v. Smith, 759 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014); United
States v. McGraw, 571 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Standiford, 148 F.3d 864 (7th Cir.
1998). McGraw is instructive; there, the defendant
argued that the convictions used categorize him as a career
offender no longer constituted crimes of violence after
Begay v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 1581 (2008). The
Seventh Circuit enforced the waiver, noting that “We
have consistently rejected arguments that an appeal waiver is
invalid because the defendant did not anticipate subsequent
legal developments.” McGraw, 571 F.3d at 631.
response to the motion, Petitioner argues the appeal waiver
does not apply. He contends his sentence is
“unconstitutionally defective, ” which ...