United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
DERRICK R. PARKS, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
D. WHITNEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, (Doc. 1).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).