Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crawford v. United States

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

July 29, 2019

ANTONIO CRAWFORD, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES, Respondent.

          ORDER AND OPINION

          James E. Shadid United States District Judge.

         Now before the Court is Petitioner Antonio Crawford's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241 (d/e 1). This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the hybrid §§ 2255 and 2241 petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 1(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. Because it plainly appears from the Petition and attached exhibits that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, Petitioner's Petition (d/e 1) is SUMMARILY DISMISSED and the Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner, while serving other criminal sentences in Illinois state prison, “mailed to the federal courthouse in Portland, Maine, several letters vowing that federal judges and prosecutors in that district would ‘pay' just as he had ‘paid all my money to see most of yall dead.' He also wrote that he would rape the assistant United States attorney allegedly responsible for prosecuting his ‘brother.'” United States v. Crawford, 665 Fed.Appx. 539, 540 (7th Cir. 2016). On April 18, 2013, Petitioner was charged in a one-count indictment with mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). United States v. Crawford, No. 1:13- cr-10048-JES (C.D. Ill.) (hereinafter, Crim.), Indictment (d/e 1). On November 3, 2014, Petitioner pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Crim., Minute Entry Nov. 3, 2014.

         The United States Probation Office prepared a revised Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). PSR (Crim., d/e 64). The PSR calculated that Petitioner had a criminal history score of 15, resulting in a criminal history category of VI. PSR ¶47 (Crim., d/e 64). Based on an offense level of 20 and a criminal history of VI, the PSR concluded Petitioner's advisory sentencing guidelines range was 70 to 87 months of imprisonment. PSR ¶65 (Crim., d/e 64). Under the statute, Petitioner's maximum term of imprisonment was 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 876(c).

         At the sentencing hearing on June 29, 2015, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 70 months' imprisonment “to run consecutive to the term imposed in NDIL No. 11-CR-500 and in Cook County, IL Nos. 11CR1345601 and 11CR 1288001.” Judgment (Crim., d/e 69). Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal on October 28, 2016. Crawford, 665 Fed.Appx. at 544.

         In November 2016, Petitioner filed a motion in his criminal case seeking to receive credit for time spent in federal custody prior to his sentence date. Motion (Crim., d/e 91). The Court denied the Motion, finding that the Petitioner was already serving three sentences when he committed the instant offense and that the Court had ordered this case to run consecutive to those cases. Crim., Nov. 9, 2016 Text Order.

         In January 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. The case was transferred to this district and subsequently voluntary dismissed at the request of Petitioner because he did not want a court in this district to decide his Petition. Crawford v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-1033 (C.D. Ill.).

         Petitioner filed this hybrid petition with claims pursuant to both §§ 2255 and 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and it was subsequently transferred here. See Order (d/e 4). He claims he is entitled to relief under § 2255 because he found an error in his presentence investigation report and because his sentence is void because this Court had a conflict, and that he is entitled to relief under § 2241 because the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is refusing to give him credit for time served on his state court convictions. See Pet. (d/e 1).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Petitioner's Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Must Be Dismissed.

         A person convicted of a federal crime may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Relief under § 2555 is an extraordinary remedy because a § 2255 petitioner has already had “an opportunity for full process.” Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007). A petitioner may avail himself of § 2255 relief only if he can show that there are “flaws in the conviction or sentence which are jurisdictional in nature, constitutional in magnitude or result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Boyer v. United States, 55 F.2d 296, 298 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 268 (1995). Here, Petitioner's claims must be dismissed because they are not cognizable in collateral review.

         1. Petitioner's Claim of Err in His Advisory Guidelines Calculation is Not Cognizable on Collateral Review.

         Petitioner first claims he is entitled to relief because he found an error on his presentence investigation report. See Pet. at 5-6 (d/e 1). Specifically, he alleges that the PSR awarded him 3 additional criminal history points for a charge that included “the same victim and same act, [and for which the] sentence was imposed [on the] same day. Id. However, two decisions from the Seventh Circuit, Hawkins v. United States, 706 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2013) (Hawkins I), and Hawkins v. United States, 724 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2013) (Hawkins II), preclude relief for Petitioner, because together they hold a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.