United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
C. .DEVER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25, 2018, Corby Montrelle Bridgers
("Bridgers" or "petitioner"), proceeding
pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D.E. 1] and exhibits [D.E. 1-1]. On
June IS, 2018, Bridgers refiled his petition on the form
prescribed for use in this court. Am. Pet. [D.E. 4]. The
court now conducts its preliminary review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2243 and dismisses the petition for lack of
On September 24, 2013, [Mr. Bridgers] pled guilty pursuant to
a written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one
kilogram or more ofheroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846 [(count one)], and one count
of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)[(count
five)]. On March 6, 2014, Mr. Bridgers was sentenced to ISO
months on the narcotics charge followed by a consecutive 60
months on the § 924(c), resulting in a total term of 210
months' imprisonment. Mr. Bridgers did not appeal, and
his judgment became final on March 7, 2015.
Bridgers v. United States. No. 5:13-CR-183-BO-l,
2015 WL 3605677, at *1 (E.D. N.C. June 5, 2015) (unpublished)
(internal citations omitted), appeal dismissed. 613
Fed.Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished); see
Am. Pet [D.E. 4] 1; Mem. Supp. Am. Pet. [D.E. 4-1] 4-6.
March 2, 2015, Bridgers filed a motion to vacate his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Bridgers.
2015 WL 3605677, at *1; Am. Pet. [D.E. 4] 2, 4; Mem. Supp.
Am. Pet [D.E. 4-1] 6-7. On June 5, 2015, the court dismissed
the motion. See Bridgers. 2015 WL 3605677, at *1.
Bridgers appealed. On September 1, 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal.
See Bridgers. 613 Fed.Appx. at 270-71; Am. Pet.
[D.E. 4] 5-6.
March 2, 2016, through counsel, Bridgers moved for a
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). See Mot. United States v. Bridgers.No.
5:13-CR-183-BO-l, [D.E. 173] (E.D. N.C. Mar. 2, 2016). On
June 2, 2016, the court granted Bridgers's motion and
reduced Bridgers's sentence on count one to 120 months.
M, [D.E. 179] (E.D. N.C. June 2, 2016). The reduction had no
effect on Bridgers's 60-month consecutive sentence on
count five. Id. at 1.
continues to challenge the calculation of his sentence,
including the quantity of drugs attributed to him and the
leadership enhancement applied to him. See Am. Pet [D.E. 4]
6-7; Mem. Supp. Am. Pet. [D.E. 4-1] 8-10. Bridgers also
contends that "the PSR double counts numerous concurrent
and consolidated North Carolina priors which led to
[Bridgers] being sentenced under category VL which was
procedural error that affected the petitioner's
substantial rights and due process rights because it caused a
much higher guideline range to be produced." Mem. Supp.
Am. Pet. [D.E. 4-1] 11. Finally, Bridgers argues that his
conviction on count five "has been unconstitutionally
applied and must be vacated" because he was physically
incapable of accessing the firearm when law enforcement
searched his residence. Id. at 12.
court may not consider a section 2241 motion challenging the
legality of Bridgers's conviction and sentence unless
"the remedy by [section 2255] motion is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e); see In re Vial. 115 F.3d
1192, 1194 (4th, Cir. 1997) (en banc). Section 2255 "is
inadequate and ineffective to test the legality" of a
(1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of [the Fourth
Circuit] or the Supreme Court established the legality of the
sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal
and first [section] 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled
substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively
on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the
gatekeeping provisions of [section] 2255(h)(2) for second or
successive motions', and (4) due to this retroactive
change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave
to be deemed a fundamental defect
United States v. Wheeler. 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th
Cir. 2018), pet for cert filed. No. 18-420, 87
U.S.L.W. 3152 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2018); see In re Jones.
226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Section 2255 is
"not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because
... an individual is procedurally barred from filing a
[section] 2255 motion." Vial. 115 F.3d at 1194
n.5. If a section 2241 petition does not fall within the
scope of section 2255(e)'s savings clause, the district
court must dismiss the "unauthorized habeas motion...
for lack of jurisdiction." Rice v. Rivera. 617
F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see Wheels, 886
F.3d at 423.
Bridgers cites two Guideline amendments and a host of cases,
see Mem. Supp. Am. Pet. [D.E. 4-1] 8-10, Bridgers has not
identified a new rule of substantive law that retroactively
applies on collateral review. See, e.g., Crowder v.
United States, No. 4:17-CR-37.2019 WL943390. at *2 (E.D.
Va. Feb. 26, 2019) (unpublished); Villarreal v.
Wilson. No. 2:17CV533, 2018 WL 7288531, at *5 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 21, 2018) (unpublished) (collecting cases), report
and recommendation adopted. 2019 WL 573414
(E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2019) (unpublished); Hart v. Warden.
FPC Alderson. No. 1:16-CV-1453, 2018 WL 7120258, at *2
n.2 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 13, 2018) (unpublished), report
and recommendation adopted. 2019 WL 286745 (S.D.
W.Va. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished); Minorv.
Coaklev.No. 2:17-CV-133, 2018 WL 4871131, at *2 (N.D.
W.Va. Oct 9.2018) (unpublished) Suggs v. Saad. No.
2:16-CV-58.2017 WL 1862468, at *7(N.D.W.Va. May 9, 2017)
(unpublished) (collecting cases). Moreover, Bridgers cannot
meet Wheeler's fourth prong and show, due to a
retroactive change, that his sentencing "now presents an
error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental
defect" Wheeler. 886 F.3d at 429. The
sentencing court's j alleged miscalculation of
Bridgers's advisory guideline range does not present
"a defect of a 'fundamental' nature."
United States v. Foote. 784 F.3d 931, 941-43 (4th
Cir. 2015); see Lester v. Flournov. 909 F.3d 708,
715 (4th Cir. 2018); Wheeler. 886 F.3d at 432 n.9.
reviewing the claim presented in Bridgers's habeas
petition in light of the applicable standard, the court
determines that reasonable jurists would not find that the
court's treatment of Bridgers's claim was debatable
or wrong, and the issue does not deserve encouragement to
proceed further. See, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El
v. Cockrell. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the
court denies a certificate of appealability.
the court DISMISSES petitioner's application for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D.E. 1] for
lack of jurisdiction. The court DENIES a ...