United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Lamadrae Chapman 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, Doc. 9.
Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 13.
argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner
cannot challenge his classification as a career offender in a
§ 2241 petition and because he waived his right to file
a collateral attack in his plea agreement.
Facts and Procedural History
to written plea agreement, Chapman pleaded guilty to one
count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in the
Southern District of Illinois in 2009. United States v.
Chapman, Case No. 09-cr-30096-DRH. The agreement
provided that the government would recommend a sentence at
the low end of the sentencing range. Case No.
09-cr-30096-DRH, Doc. 30.
sentencing, the court found petitioner to be a career
offender and calculated the advisory Guidelines range as 151
to 188 months imprisonment. The Court sentenced petitioner to
151 months. Case No. 09-cr-30096-DRH, Docs. 35 & 37.
plea agreement contained a waiver of the right to appeal or
file a collateral attack:
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.
Acknowledging all this, and 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. Defendant knowingly
and voluntarily waives his right to seek a pardon, whether
before or after his release from custody.
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, which is declared retroactive by those
Courts and which renders the defendant actually innocent of
the charges covered herein; and 2) appeals based upon
Sentencing Guideline amendments which are made retroactive by
the United States Sentencing Commission (see U.S.S.G. §
1B 1.10). The Government reserves the right to oppose such
claims for relief.
Case No. 09-cr-30096-DRH, Doc. 30.
filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that his
sentence was unconstitutional in light of Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). That motion was
denied because Chapman had not been sentenced under the
residual clause of the career offender Guideline. Rather, he
was a career offender because he had two prior convictions
for crimes of violence, Illinois residential burglary and
Illinois aggravated battery. The Court explained that
residential burglary was an enumerated crime and aggravated
battery had as an element the use or attempted use of force.
Chapman v. United States, Case No. 16-691, Doc. 11.
relying on Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), Chapman argues that his prior conviction for Illinois
residential burglary no longer qualifies as a crime of
violence for purposes of the career offender enhancement
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. This argument would likely fail
under the reasoning of Smith v. United States,
__F.3d__, 2017 WL 6350072 (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017), holding
that Illinois residential burglary is no broader than generic
burglary. However, it is unnecessary to decide the
substantive merits of his argument because the petition must
be dismissed for other reasons.
petitioner cannot bring a Mathis claim in a §
2241 petition. There are some errors that can be raised on
direct appeal but not in a collateral attack such as a §
2255 motion or a § 2241 petition. A claim that a
defendant was erroneously treated as a career offender under
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines is one such claim.
Hawkins v. United States, 706 F.3d 820 (7th Cir.
2013), supplemented on denial of rehearing, 724 F.3d 915 (7th
Cir. 2013). See also, United States v. Coleman, 763
F.3d 706, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2014)(“[W]e held in
Hawkins that the error in calculating the Guidelines
range did not constitute a miscarriage of justice for §