United States District Court, D. Maryland
THEODORE D. CHUANG United States District Judge
Rodriguez, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Cumberland, Maryland ("FCI-Cumberland"), has
filed a self-represented Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2241, in which he challenges
his sentencing enhancement as a career offender under the
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Rodriguez seeks the
issuance of a new Pre-Sentence Investigation Report
correcting and re-calculating his guideline range to reflect
that he is not a "career offender." Pet. at 10, ECF
opposing the Petition, Respondent Warden Timothy Stewart
argues, among other grounds, that Rodriguez may not obtain
relief through a petition under 28 U.S.C. S 2241 because he
has not demonstrated that a motion under 28 U.S.C. S 2255
would be "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention." 28 U.S.C. S 2255(e) (2018). Rodriguez
has filed a Reply. Having reviewed the submitted materials,
the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See D.
Md. Local R. 105.6. For reasons set forth below, the Petition
will be DISMISSED.
material facts of the case are not in dispute. On May 16,
1996, after a jury trial in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Rodriguez was
convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation
of21 U.S.C. S 846. United States v. Rodriguez, No.
94-CR-0192-WB-10(E.D.Pa. 1994). On November 20, 1997,
Rodriguez was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of
360 months followed by ten years of supervised release.
Rodriguezss sentence was based on the sentencing court's
determinaiion that he was a career offender pursuant to the
then-mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G.
S 4B1.1(a), by virtue of his 1987 Pennsylvania state
conviction for involuntary manslaughter, and his 1987
conviction in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Eastern District of
Pennsylvania") for distribution of cocaine. Rodriguezss
direct appeal was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
November 3, 1999, Rodriguez filed his first Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. S 2255, which
was denied by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
November 22, 2002, the Third Circuit denied Rodriguezss
request for a certificate of appealability.
8, 2003, Rodriguez filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking reconsideraiion of the denial
of his S 2255 motion. The motion was denied. On appeal, the
Rule 60(b) motion was construed as a second or successive S
2255 motion and, after a limited remand, the motion was
denied. Rodriguezss subsequent application to file a second
or successive S 2255 motion was also denied by the Third
16, 2008, Rodriguez filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 3582(c)(2) on the ground that the
United States Sentencing Guidelines were no longer mandatory
pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,
265 (2005). The Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed
the motion as an improper second or successive S 2255 motion.
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
and denied a certificate of appealability. Rodriguez next
filed a Petition for Writ of Audita Querela, again arguing he
was entitled to resentencing. The district court's denial
of the petition was affirmed by the Third Circuit.
October 23, 2013 and May 20, 2014, Rodriguez filed with the
Third Circuit applications for leave to file a second or
successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2244(b)(3). The
applications were denied.
on July 8, 2014, Rodriguez filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2241 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that his Pennsylvania state conviction
for involuntary manslaughter no longer qualifies as a
"crime of violence" in light of Begay v. United
States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), abrogated by Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The petition was
dismissed on August 14, 2014.
16, 2016, Rodriguez filed in the Eastern Dis~rict of
Pennsylvania another Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence under 28 U.S.C. S 2255, alleging that in light of
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his
prior Pennsylvania conviction for involuntary manslaughter
was no longer a crime of violence for purposes of the career
offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. S 4B1.1. On November 17,
2017, the Third Circuit granted Rodriguez leave to file a
second or successive S 2255 motion. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania stayed the motion pending the resolution of
United States v. Green, 898 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2018).
Upon the resolution of Green, the federal public
defender determined that Rodriguez was not entitled to relief
and withdrew his S 2255 motion in April 2019.
that S 2255 motion was pending, on October 26, 208,,
Rodriguez filed the instant Petition in this Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. S 2241. In the Petition, Rodriguez again argues
that he should be resentenced because in light of
Johnson, his state conviction for involuntary
manslaughter no longer qualifies as a predicate offense for
purposes of the career offender enhancement that was applied
against him at the time of his sentencing.
argue that the Petition should be dismissed because the
requested relief must be sought through a motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S
2255, not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. S 2241. A S 2241 petition may be filed to attack
the manner in which a sentence is executed. In re
Vial,115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Such a petition must be filed in the district in which the
petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. S 2241(a).
A collateral attack on the validity ofa federal conviction or
sentence, however, is properly brought through as 2255