United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon United States District Judge.
currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional
Institution Greenville, brings this habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his enhanced
sentence as a career offender following his guilty plea to
Conspiracy to Distribute Crack Cocaine. United States v.
Tony Eugene Goodson, No. CR07-43-LRR (N.D. Iowa 2008)
(“criminal case”). The Petition was filed on
November 3, 2017. (Doc. 1).
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives
this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
was sentenced to life imprisonment as a Career Offender on
August 20, 2008. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). Petitioner filed a direct
appeal of his sentence, and then filed a motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 on December 16, 2010. Id. That
motion was ultimately denied. Id.
now brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and argues the career offender enhancement he
received was based on two state-law convictions that should
not have been considered felony drug offenses pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 851 and 21 U.S.C. § 841. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1).
Petitioner requests resentencing. Id.
asserts that his predicate offenses were a state law
conviction for Delivery of a Controlled Substance in Case
FECR038239, and another state law conviction for Possession
with Intent to Deliver in Case FECR038305, in violation of IA
ST § 204.401 (now IA ST § 124.401). The relevant
statutory text provides:
Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any
person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with the intent to
manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance, a counterfeit
substance, or a simulated controlled substance,
or to act with, enter into a common scheme or design
with, or conspire with one or more other persons to
manufacture, deliver, or possess with the intent to
manufacture or deliver a controlled substance, a counterfeit
substance, or a simulated controlled substance.
I.C. § 204.401 (italics added)
argues that in light of the decision in Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016), the Iowa statute is
broader than the conduct defined in the Armed Career Criminal
Act, which reads:
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful
for any person knowingly or intentionally-- (1) to
manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent
to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled
substance; or (2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or
possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit
21 U.S.C. § 841
Petitioner argues that the Iowa statute is broader due to the
italicized language, i.e., because it makes reference to the
terms “simulated controlled substance” and
“ to act with, enter into a common scheme or design