United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No.
6)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner
Michael Sloan Muller is a federal prisoner incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan
(“FCI Milan”). On September 7, 2018, Muller filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”).
(See Pet., ECF No. 1.) Muller argues that the
district court incorrectly calculated his sentencing
guidelines. (See id.) Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the petition on the ground that Muller waived his
right to challenge his sentence as part of a plea agreement.
(See Mot., ECF No. 6.) The Court agrees. Therefore,
the Court GRANTS Respondent's motion and
DISMISSES the petition.
I
In
2008, a grand jury in this district indicted Muller on three
counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) & (d), and three counts of using,
carrying, and brandishing a firearm during the commission of
a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
(See Indictment, United States v. Muller,
E.D.
Mich.
Case No. 08-cr-20009, ECF No. 10.) On December 17, 2018,
pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, Muller pleaded guilty
to one count of armed bank robbery and one count of using,
carrying, and brandishing a firearm during the commission of
a crime of violence, and the remaining charges were
dismissed. In that plea agreement, Muller waived his right to
challenge both his conviction and his sentence in any
post-conviction proceeding:
Defendant understands that defendants generally have the
right collaterally to attack their convictions and sentencing
by filing post-conviction motions, petitions, or independent
civil actions. As part of this agreement, however, defendant
knowingly and voluntarily waives that right and
agrees not to contest his/her conviction or sentence in
any post-conviction proceeding, including - but
not limited to - any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §
2255.
(Rule 11 Plea Agreement, E.D. Mich. Case No. 08-cr-20009, ECF
No. 40, PageID.134; first emphasis in original; second and
third emphasis added).
On
January 28, 2009, a Judge of this court sentenced Muller to
108 months' imprisonment for bank robbery and a
consecutive term of 60 months' imprisonment for using,
carrying, and brandishing a firearm. (See Judgment,
E.D. Mich. Case No. 08-cr-20009, ECF No. 42.)
In
September 2012, Muller filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under Section 2241 in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.[1] He raised a single ground for relief: the
sentencing judge erroneously calculated the sentencing
guidelines range. The Pennsylvania district court dismissed
the petition because, among other things, under the terms of
Muller's plea agreement, Muller waived his right to
challenge his sentence in a Section 2241 petition:
Thus, Petitioner's plea agreement bars any collateral
attack on Petitioner's sentence, as the waiver is
“not limited to” proceedings under § 2255,
but applies to all petitions for habeas corpus. This
waiver, provided by Petitioner, expressly prohibits
Petitioner from filing any collateral proceeding pertaining
to his conviction and sentence.
Muller v. Sauers, 2012 WL 12895897, at *2 (M.D. Pa.
Nov. 29, 2012).
Muller
appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed. See Muller v. Sauers, 523
Fed.Appx. 110 (3d Cir. 2013). Like the district court, the
Third Circuit concluded, among other things, that the waiver
provision of Muller's plea agreement “foreclose[d]
relief” under Section 2241. Id. at 112-13. The
Third Circuit also saw “no indication that the waiver
should not be enforced.” Id. at 112 n. 1.
Six
years after losing in the Third Circuit, Muller filed his
Section 2241 petition in this action. He filed here because
he is now held in custody at FCI Milan, in this judicial
district. Muller again claims that his sentence is invalid as
a result of a sentencing guidelines calculation error -
specifically, the purported failure of the sentencing judge
to apply U.S.S.G. Amendment 599. (See Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.4.)
On
January 22, 2019, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on
the basis that the waiver in Muller's plea agreement
precludes him from challenging his ...