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.

Randle v. Terris

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 11, 2017

MICKEY A. RANDLE, Petitioner,
v.
J. A. TERRIS, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          Sean F. Cox U.S. District Judge

         Petitioner 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.

         He 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.

         I. Background

         On 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).

         In 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).

         Randle 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 17, 2011).

         In 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).

         Petitioner 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).

         Randle 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).

         Randle 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.

         II. Discussion

         Randle 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 after Mathis.

         A 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 ...


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.