United States District Court, D. Maryland
THEODORE D. CHUANG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Henry Logan, an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, has filed this
self-represented Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent Warden Timothy
Stewart has filed an Answer, asserting that the Petition
should be denied. Although he was notified that he may file a
Reply, Logan did not do so. Upon review of the submitted
materials, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary.
See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth
below, the Petition will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
December 9, 2009, Logan pleaded guilty in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to
Distribution of Less than 500 Grams of Cocaine and Possession
with Intent to Distribute Less than 500 Grams of Cocaine,
both in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C). See United States v. Logan, No.
08-0018-KRG-KAP-1 (W.D. Pa. 2010). At sentencing, the court
determined that Logan was a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1 based on three prior convictions for a crime of
violence or a controlled substance offense and calculated
that the United States Sentencing Guidelines
("Guidelines") advisory range was 210-262 months of
imprisonment. On April 7, 2010, the court sentenced Logan to
a total term of 216 months of imprisonment. Logan appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
concluded that the appeal was barred by the appellate waiver
in Logan's plea agreement and affirmed the district
March 20, 2012, Logan filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western
District of Pennsylvania in which he claimed that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his career
offender enhancement. The court denied the Motion on April
20, 2016, Logan filed a second § 2255 motion. The Motion
challenged Logan's career offender enhancement based on
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563
(2015). In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court
held that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague.
Id. at 2557. After the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Beckles v United States, 137 S.Ct. 886,
890 (2017), which held that Johnson did not apply to
the similar clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 because the
advisory guidelines are not subject to challenges for
constitutional vagueness, Logan, by his counsel, filed a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 20, 2017.
instant Petition, Logan asserts that under Mathis v.
United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), he no longer
qualifies for the career offender enhancement. In
Mathis, the Supreme Court held that where the
elements of a predicate offense are broader than the generic
version of that offense, the crime is not a violent felony
for purposes of the ACCA, even where the statute provides
different means by which to commit the offense. Id.
at 2257. Logan argues that upon application of the principle
set forth in Mathis, two of his prior convictions no
longer qualify as predicate crimes of violence for purposes
of the career offender enhancement. Logan asks this Court to
vacate his sentence and to order his immediate release.
prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the
calculation or execution of a sentence. In re Vial,
115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Ordinarily, the legality of a federal prisoner's
conviction and sentence must be challenged under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 unless the remedy available through a § 2255
motion "is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of. . . detention," an exception referred to as
the § 2255 "savings clause." 28 U.S.C.
§2255(e) (2018); see In re Vial, 115 F.3d at
1194. In such a case, the inmate may proceed under §
2241. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
examined the requirements for finding that § 2255 is an
ineffective or inadequate remedy in the context of sentencing
errors. See United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415,
427-29 (4th Cir. 2018), petition for cert,
filed, 886 F.3d 45 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2018) (No. 18-420). The
Fourth Circuit held that § 2255 provides an ineffective
or inadequate remedy to challenge the legality of a sentence
(1) [A]t the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit
or the Supreme Court established the legality of the
sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal
and first § 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 § 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.
Id. at 429.
claims that the remedy available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
is inadequate or ineffective because "it wasn't
until the recently decided Mathis case and its
progeny that an avenue for Mr. Logan to bring his claim of
having an illegal sentence under the career offender
enhancement provision became available," and he is
"unable to meet" the requirements for filing a
second or successive habeas petition. Pet. Mem. at 3-4, ECF
cannot satisfy the second requirement of the Wheeler
test because Mathis did not establish a new rule of
substantive law retroactively applicable on collateral
review. See, e.g. Cox v. Wilson,740 Fed.Appx. 31,
32 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Mathis did not announce a
new, retroactively applicable rule."); Hirdv.
Andrews,728 Fed.Appx. 217 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating that
"the Supreme Court's ruling in Mathis . . .
does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral
review"); Brooks v. Bragg,735 Fed.Appx. 108,
109 (4th Cir. 2018) (same); Copeland v. Kassell, 733
Fed.Appx. 717 (4th Cir. 2018) (same). Mathis
"merely clarified when a court must apply the
categorical approach, rather than the modified categorical
approach, in determining the nature of a prior conviction,
and did not effect a change in the law." Davis v.
Andrews,727 Fed.Appx. 782, 783 (4th Cir. 2018). Because
Mathis did not announce a new ...