United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
ORDER AND OPINION
E. Shadid United States District Judge.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Petitioner's Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Must Be
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.
Petitioner's Claim of Err in His Advisory Guidelines
Calculation is Not Cognizable on Collateral
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 ...