Hughes v. Wilson, No. 3:2013cv00566 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/03/2014. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hughes v. Wilson Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Richmond Division RICHMOND, VA KENNETH BRONSON HUGHES, Petitioner, Civil Action No. v. 3:13CV566 ERIC WILSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenneth Bronson Hughes, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 22411 petition ("§ 2241 Petition").2 In his § 2241 Petition, unconstitutional in Hughes light of contends the that Supreme his sentence is Court's decision in 1 That statute provides, in pertinent part: (c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless (1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; (2) He is in pursuance process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; (3) He is Constitution States 28 U.S.C. or in custody for an act done or omitted of an Act of Congress, or an order, or in or custody laws or in violation treaties of the of the United .... § 2241(c)(l)-(3). 2 The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Court (''Sentencing Court") convicted Hughes of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base and sentenced him to 334 months of imprisonment. See Hughes v. United States, No. 7:05CV00495, 2006 WL 27696, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2006). By Order entered on January 4, 2006, the Sentencing Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion filed by Hughes. See id. at *4. Dockets.Justia.com Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) .3 For reasons set forth below, the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. I. Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Compared To Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. means of collateral conviction court. and See attack sentence Pack v. and § 2255 provides the primary on the must be filed 218 F.3d 448, Yusuff, § 2241 imposition of with 451 a the federal sentencing (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Pet. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). A federal inmate may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless he or she demonstrates that the remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "is inadequate legality of his detention." or ineffective to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).4 test the For example, "attacks on the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241 petition." 1997) (citing In re Vial, Bradshaw 3 In Alleyne, the v. 115 F.3d 1192, Story, 86 Supreme Court F.3d 1194 n.5 164, addressed 166 (4th Cir. (10th Cir. a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. 2155-56. The Supreme Court held that, other than prior convictions, "facts that increase [statutory] mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury." Id. at 2163. 4 "This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed by § 2255." Wilson v. Wilson, No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 WL 1245671, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000)). 1996); Hanahan 1982)). v. Luther, Nevertheless, 693 the F.2d 629, United States 632 Court the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the § 2255 is not an n.l (7th Cir. of Appeals for remedy afforded by rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision or because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion." The Fourth Circuit Id. (citations omitted). has stressed that an inmate may proceed under § 2241 to challenge his circumstances." Cir. 2008) omitted). as conviction "in only very limited United States v. (citation Poole, omitted) 531 F.3d 263, (internal 269 quotation (4th marks The "controlling test," id., in the Fourth Circuit is follows: [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective the legality of a conviction when: to test (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional In re Jones, added). remedy which The for an 226 F.3d Fourth the Circuit "fundamental individual criminal but, 328, is 333-34 (4th formulated defect through no fault of his this for 2000) (emphasis test to by situation a conduct [or her] Id. at 333 n.3 3 Cir. presented incarcerated has no source of redress." law. own, provide that [he is a in not or she] (emphasis added). II. Analysis Of Hughes's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Hughes fails to satisfy the second prong of In re Jones. See In re Jones, 226 Hughes fails to demonstrate Specifically, [his] direct appeal F.3d and 328, [his] 334 first (4th Cir. 2000). that "subsequent to § 2255 motion, substantive law changed such that the conduct of which [he] convicted is deemed not to be The conduct of which Hughes distribute and possess with more of cocaine base, F. Aug. App'x 1, provide basis 551 the in Alleyne decision 2241 petition cocaine base F. App'x fails and 218 reach the under a to precedent Alsop v. . not to only their sentence." Poole, 531 F.3d at 267 n.7 Accordingly, for cocaine clause 226 F.3d at 333-34). (concluding filing distribution savings Jones, those . to basis for . (4th Cir. fails 2014) distribute has No. 2241); Cir. provide or Alleyne § (5th convictions conspiracy "Fourth Circuit in at *1 to grams See Mabry v. Wilson, decision to conspiracy to distribute five relief 217, challenging Moreover, of the was (emphasis added). 2014 WL 3766729, seeking Chandler, Id. convicted, remains a crime. (concluding for stands intent , 14-6430, 2014) criminal." the § of base). extended the petitioners challenging (citing In re the Court will dismiss Hughes's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for want of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Hughes. Robert E. Isl Payne je>*f Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: d^ci^^^
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
