United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jeffrey Roundtree, who is currently incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois
(“Greenville”), filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1).
Relying on the recent cases of Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), Descamps v. United
States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), and Dean v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), he challenges the
sentence he received in United States v. Roundtree,
07-cr-164-LJM-KPF (S.D. Ind. 2010) (“Criminal
Case”). (Doc. 1, p. 6). The Court concludes that the
Petition does not survive preliminary review under Rule 4 and
Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
March 13, 2008, Petitioner entered a guilty plea on Counts 2
and 4 in his Criminal Case pursuant to a written plea
agreement. (Doc. 2, p. 5); Criminal Case, Doc. 64. Count 4,
brought under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), was based on
Petitioner's brandishing of a firearm during a robbery.
Criminal Case, Doc. 130. Petitioner received a 216-month
(18-year) consecutive sentence under Count 4, though the
crime carried a mandatory minimum consecutive term of
imprisonment of not less than 25 years. (Doc. 2, p. 6);
Criminal Case, Docs. 60, 130. This sentence was to run
consecutive to his 84-month (7-year) sentence for Count 2 of
the Criminal Case, also based on 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),
that carried a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not
less than 7 years. Id.
his plea agreement proceedings, Petitioner expressly waived
his right to appeal and his right to contest the sentence
imposed and the manner in which it was determined in any
collateral attack. Criminal Case, Doc. 60, p. 4. Petitioner
has filed two unsuccessful § 2255 motions, on June 24,
2016 and June 29, 2017. Criminal Case, Docs. 148, 151.
of the Rules Governing Section 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
Court need not consider the merits of this case because
Petitioner explicitly waived his right to bring this
challenge in his plea agreement in the Criminal Case.
Criminal Case, Doc. 60. According to the plea agreement,
Petitioner agreed to waive “his right to appeal the
sentence imposed” and “waive[d] his right to
contest the sentence imposed and the manner in which it was
determined in any collateral attack, including an action
brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section
guilty plea is entered knowingly and voluntarily, appeal
waivers are enforceable. Solano v. United States,
812 F.3d 573, 577 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing United States
v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1051 (7th Cir. 2000));
United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 638 (7th
Cir. 2011). “The appeal waiver stands or falls with the
plea agreement.” Id. Further, a waiver of the
right to challenge a conviction or sentence under § 2255
also bars a petition under § 2241 because the waiver
does not render the remedy under § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective. Muse v. Daniels, 815 F.3d 265 (7th Cir.
2016) (§ 2241 is a “form of collateral
attack”). Moreover, a subsequent change in the law does
not make an appeal waiver involuntary. United States v.
Vela, 740 F.3d 1150, 1151 (7th Cir. 2014).
does not claim that his plea or appeal and collateral attack
waivers were involuntary or invalid. In any event, a §
2241 petition is not the appropriate vehicle for raising this
argument. Petitioner also does not appear to have raised the
issue in his previous § 2255 motions. For these reasons,
the Court finds that Petitioner waived his right to bring
this collateral attack on his sentence, and this action must
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is
summarily DISMISSED with prejudice for the
reasons stated above. Respondent WERLICH is
also DISMISSED with prejudice.
Petitioner wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a
notice of appeal with this court within sixty days of the
entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth
the issues Petitioner plans to present on appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Petitioner does
choose to appeal and is allowed to proceed IFP, he will be
liable for a portion of the $505.00 appellate filing fee (the
amount to be determined based on his prison trust fund
account records for the past six months) irrespective of the
outcome of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e); 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547
F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza,
181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v.
Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). A proper
and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) may toll the 60-day appeal deadline. A Rule
59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28)
days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day
deadline cannot be extended.
not necessary for Petitioner to obtain a certificate of
appealability from this disposition of his § 2241
petition. Walker v. ...