United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
STEVEN L. MCCOY Petitioner,
WILLIAM TRUE, WARDEN Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Steven L. McCoy (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. (Doc. 1). 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. (Doc. 11). Petitioner did not file a responsive
pleading. For the following reasons, Petitioner's
petition for habeas relief is denied.
Facts and Procedural History
2007, Petitioner executed a plea agreement and pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). United States v.
McCoy, Case No. 07-CR-30012-MJR (S.D. IL) (hereinafter
criminal case) (Doc. 37). The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois categorized Petitioner as a
career offender based on his prior state felony convictions
for unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver,
unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, and robbery.
(Doc. 37, p. 8, criminal case). The Court sentenced
Petitioner to 200 months imprisonment to run consecutive to
two state court sentences he was already
serving. (Doc. 40, criminal case).
plea agreement contains provisions waiving his right to
1. The Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, he is
waiving all appellate issues that might have been available
if he had exercised his right to trial.
2. The Defendant is aware that Tile 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 Government 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 . . .
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 . . .
(Doc. 37, pp. 10-11, 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 appeal waiver
bars this collateral attack.
agreement may include a valid waiver of the right to appeal
and file a collateral attack, and such waivers are generally
enforceable. Solano v. United States, 812 F.3d 573,
577 (7th Cir. 2016). Limited exceptions arise when 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).
asserts his appeals waiver is not applicable to his claims;
dismissing his petition would result in a miscarriage of
justice; and he ...