United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MICKEY A. RANDLE, Petitioner,
J. A. TERRIS, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
F. Cox U.S. District Judge
Mickey A. Randle, currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Facility in Milan, Michigan, brings this habeas
corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
argues that one of the two offenses used for his career
offender designation does not qualify as a predicate crime of
violence under Mathis v. United States, ___ U.S.
___, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). For the reasons set forth, the
Court denies the petition.
October 7, 2005, Randle pleaded guilty in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to
possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United
States v. Randle, No. 3:04-cr-00188-bbc-1. On December
15, 2005, Randle was sentenced to 400 months'
imprisonment to be followed by five years' supervised
release. See Judgment, Ex. 5 to Response to Pet. for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 8-5, Pg. ID 81-86). Randle was
sentenced after the Supreme Court issued its decision in
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005),
and the trial court properly viewed the Sentencing Guidelines
as advisory rather than mandatory. See 12/15/05 Tr.,
Ex. 4, Resp. to Pet. (ECF No. 8-4). Randle appealed his
conviction and sentence. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). United States v. Randle, 208 F.
App'x 462 (2006).
2007, Randle filed a motion to vacate his conviction and
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court
denied the motion and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
denied a certificate of appealability. Randle v. United
States, No. 07-3824 (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2008).
filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) and 60(b) in 2011. The district
court construed the motion as an unauthorized successive
motion under § 2255 and dismissed the motion for lack of
jurisdiction. United States v. Randle, No.
04-cr-188-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sept. 1, 2010). The Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability.
United States v. Randle, No. 10-3812 (7th Cir. June
2016, Randle sought authorization from the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals to file a successive motion to vacate
sentence under § 2255, challenging his sentence under
Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015). The Court of Appeals denied leave to file a
successive § 2255 motion. Randle v. United
States, No. 16-2067 (7th Cir. June 2, 2016).
again moved for post-conviction relief under § 2255 by
filing a motion in the Western District of Wisconsin. He
sought a reduction in his sentence in light of Mathis v.
United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). The
district court denied the motion because Randle did not
obtain the necessary certification for filing a successive
§ 2255 motion. Randle v. United States, No.
04-cv-669-bbc (W.D. Wis. Oct. 6, 2016).
has also filed three motions to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582, based upon changes to the drug guidelines
after his sentencing. All three motions were granted and his
sentence reduced to a 188-month term of imprisonment.
See Ex. 6, Resp. to Pet. (ECF No. 8-6).
filed the pending habeas petition on December 7, 2016. A
month after filing his habeas petition, Randle filed a motion
to supplement his petition. The Court will grant that motion
and the supplement is accepted for filing.
contends that he was improperly sentenced as a career
offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Specifically, he argues that, based upon the Supreme
Court's decision in Mathis v. United States, 136
S.Ct. 2243 (2016), he is actually innocent of the career
offender enhancement because one of the two offenses used for
his career offender designation, a Wisconsin state conviction
for burglary, does not count as a predicate crime of violence
prisoner generally may challenge his federal conviction or
sentence only by means of a § 2255 motion. See Hill
v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2016). A writ of
habeas corpus under § 2255 requires the petitioner to
file his challenge in the district that imposed the criminal
sentence on him. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A petition
challenging the manner or execution of a sentence is
appropriate under § 2241. Hill, 836 F.3d at
594. In this case, petitioner is clearly attacking his
sentence, but is doing so under § 2241. A federal
prisoner may bring a claim challenging his conviction or the
imposition of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if it
appears that the remedy afforded under section 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. Cha ...