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.

Parks v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

September 12, 2019

DERRICK R. PARKS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          FRANK D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Doc. 1).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute quantities of cocaine and cocaine base and was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. (5:18-cv-119, Doc. No. 117). On direct appeal he raised an issue relating to jury selection and juror misconduct, challenged a pair of evidentiary rulings, and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the Court's drug weight findings at sentencing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. United States v. Blackwell, 436 Fed.Appx. 192 (4th Cir. 2011). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 17, 2012. Parks v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1093 (2012).

         Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on January 22, 2013, case number 5:13-cv-12. The Court denied § 2255 relief and specifically rejected a claim pursuant to Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) and United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), because Petitioner was sentenced pursuant to the advisory guidelines and his sentence was not enhanced under the Controlled Substances Act. Parks v. United States, 2014 WL 4233240 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 26, 2014). The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Petitioner's appeal. United States v. Parks, 589 Fed.Appx. 213 (4th Cir. 2015).

         On December 8, 2015, the Court reduced Petitioner's sentence to 292 months' imprisonment pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. (5:18-cv-119, Doc. No. 171).

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 25, 2018, while he was incarcerated at the Bennettsville FCI in Bennettsville, South Carolina. (Doc. No. 1). He argues that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge his conviction or sentence because he was unable to appeal an erroneous sentence enhancement under Carachuri-Rosendo and Simmons. Petitioner asks the Court to address his sentencing claim on the merits.

         The United States filed a Response arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue to entertain the § 2241 petition and, in any event, Simmons has no effect on Petitioner's sentence. (Doc. No. 7).

         Petitioner filed a Reply arguing that his § 2241 petition should be reviewed on the merits pursuant to United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), certiorari denied 139 S.Ct. 1318 (2019).

         In an unsigned pro se filing entitled “Under Rule Fed. R. Civ. 41 to Withdraw a Motion, ” (Doc. No. 9), docketed on July 26, 2019, Petitioner asks to withdraw his § 2241 petition from this Court's consideration due to lack of jurisdiction.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         An inmate attacking custody resulting from a federally-imposed sentence may bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 alleging that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). However, a habeas corpus petition on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief pursuant to § 2255 “shall not be entertained” if it appears that the applicant failed to apply for relief to the sentencing court, or that such relief has been denied, unless it also appears that the § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see Wheeler, 886 F.3d at 429.

         “Jurisdiction” in the context of § 2241 traditionally lies in the district of confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). However, “jurisdiction” in the context of § 2241(a) is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction and is subject to waiver. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43, 434 n.7 (2004) (noting that “jurisdiction” is capable of different interpretations, and distinguishing the “jurisdiction” discussed in § 2241(a) from subject-matter jurisdiction); Kanai v. McHugh, 638 F.3d 251, 258 (4th Cir. 2011) (§ 2241(a) refers to either venue or personal jurisdiction, both of which are subject to waiver).

         III. ...


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.