United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon, United States District Judge
Clevis Holmes 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).
filed a response at Doc. 11 and a supplemental response at
Doc. 13. Petitioner filed replies at Docs. 14 and 17.
Facts and Procedural History
pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine, one
count of distribution of heroin, and one count of aiding and
abetting the distribution of cocaine base
(“crack”) in this district. United States v.
Holmes, No. 14-cr-30155-DRH (S.D. Ill.). There was not a
written plea agreement. On April 17, 2015, he was sentenced
to 188 months imprisonment on each count, to run
sentencing, the court determined that petitioner qualified as
a career offender based on two prior convictions for drug
offenses under Illinois law. He had a 2002 conviction for
unlawful delivery of a controlled substance while located
within 1000 feet of a housing project in violation of 720
ILCS 570/407, and a 2006 conviction for unlawful delivery of
a controlled substance in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401. His
advisory sentencing range was 188 to 235 months. No.
14-30155-DRH, Transcript of Sentencing Hearing, Doc. 46, p.
filed a direct appeal. His attorney filed an Anders
brief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. United States v.
Holmes, 623 Fed.Appx. 813 (7th Cir. 2015)
did not file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Standards Applicable to Section 2241
petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 may not be used to raise claims of legal error in
conviction or sentencing, but are limited to challenges
regarding the execution of a sentence. See, Valona v.
United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir.1998).
prisoner who has been convicted in federal court is generally
limited to challenging his conviction and sentence by
bringing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
court which sentenced him. A motion under § 2255 is
ordinarily the “exclusive means for a federal prisoner
to attack his conviction.” Kramer v. Olson,
347 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 2003). And, a prisoner is
generally limited to bringing only one motion under
§ 2255. A prisoner may not file a “second or
successive” motion unless a panel of the appropriate
court of appeals certifies that such motion contains either
1) newly discovered evidence “sufficient to establish
by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense,
” or 2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C.
it is possible, under very limited circumstances, for a
prisoner to challenge his federal conviction or sentence
under § 2241. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) contains a
“savings clause” which authorizes a federal
prisoner to file a § 2241 petition where the remedy
under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention.” The Seventh Circuit
construed the savings clause in In re Davenport, 147
F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998): “A procedure for
postconviction relief can be fairly termed inadequate when it
is so configured as to deny a convicted defendant any
opportunity for judicial rectification of so fundamental a
defect in his conviction as having been imprisoned for a
Seventh Circuit has explained that, in order to fit within
the savings clause following Davenport, a petitioner
must meet three conditions. First, he must show that he
relies on a new statutory interpretation case rather than a
constitutional case. Secondly, he must show that he relies on
a decision that he could not have invoked in his first §
2255 motion and that case must apply retroactively.
Lastly, he must demonstrate that there has been a
“fundamental defect” in his conviction or
sentence that is grave enough to be ...