Tennille v. Terris

          OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Lawrence Kemp Tennille, II, (petitioner), incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenges his sentence out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base and his sentence as a career offender.

         For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is SUMMARILY DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Kentucky and was sentenced as a career offender to life in prison. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Tennille, No. 97-6245, 2000 WL 191725, 205 F.3d 1343 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2000)(Table).

         Petitioner has filed several post-conviction motions to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which have all been denied either on the merits or for being an impermissibly filed successive motion to vacate sentence. See United States v. Tennille, No. 5:13-CV-7260-JMH-HAI, 2013 WL 12344191, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:13-CV-7260-JMH, 2013 WL 12344190 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 19, 2013).

         In 2008, petitioner filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which was denied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to reduce sentence. United States v. Tennille, 365 F. App’x. 613 (6th Cir. 2010).

         Petitioner then attempted to challenge his sentence by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was denied. See United States v. Tennille, No. 5:10-CV-7113-JMH, 2011 WL 13277567 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 4, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 96-CR16-JMH, 2011 WL 13277618 (E.D. Ky. May 20, 2011).

         In 2016, President Barack Obama commuted petitioner’s life sentence to thirty years in prison.

         Petitioner then filed another motion for sentence reduction, which was denied. United States v. Tennille, No. 96-CR16-JMH (E.D. Ky. Feb. 13, 2017)(Petitioner’s Attachment 4).

         In 2019, petitioner filed a motion with the sentencing court, in which he sought a further reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The sentencing judge denied petitioner’s motion to reduce his sentence, finding that petitioner was not entitled to reduction of his sentence under either the First Step Act or the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 because he had been sentenced to life imprisonment as a career offender and not under the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Tennille, No. 5:96-CR-016-JMH, 2019 WL 2163601 (E.D. Ky. May 17, 2019).

         Petitioner filed his current habeas petition, in which he seeks a reduction of his sentence pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under federal law or it may summarily be dismissed. See Perez v. Hemingway,157 F.Supp.2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal courts are also authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. McFarland v. Scott,512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that are attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke,178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Sixth Circuit, in fact, long ago indicated that they “disapprove the practice of issuing a show cause order [to the respondent] until after the District Court first has made a careful examination of the petition.” Allen v. Perini,424 F.3d 134, 140 (6th Cir. 1970). A district court therefore has the duty to screen out any habeas corpus ...