United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
L. TINSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is the petitioner's Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1).
This matter is assigned to the Honorable David A. Faber,
United States District Judge, and it is referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons
stated herein, it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that the presiding District
Judge DISMISS the petitioner's section
2241 petition (ECF No. 1) and this civil action for lack of
AND PETITIONER'S CLAIM
The petitioner's conviction and direct appeal
December 12, 2002, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois of one count of distributing 6.3 grams of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). (United States v. Pittman, No.
3:01-cr-30148-2, ECF No. 104, Verdict). The jury also made a
specific finding that the amount of controlled substances
attributable to the petitioner in the distribution charge was
at least 5 grams, but less than 50 grams of cocaine base,
which exposed the petitioner to a sentence of not less than
five years and not more than 40 years of imprisonment
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). (Id.)
to his conviction, the United States of America filed an
Information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, which subjected
the petitioner to an increased statutory sentencing range of
10 years to life due to his prior convictions. (Id.,
ECF No. 41). Under the then-mandatory United States
Sentencing Guidelines, the petitioner also received a
guideline enhancement under USSG § 4B1.1 for being a
career offender. Therefore, his sentencing guideline level
was calculated to be a level 37, with a criminal history
category of VI, resulting in a sentencing guideline range of
360 months to life. On March 21, 2003, the petitioner was
sentenced to 390 months in prison, followed by an 8-year term
of supervised release, a $100 special assessment and a $2,
000 fine. (Id., ECF No. 120). A Judgment to that
effect was entered on March 24, 2003. (Id., ECF No.
petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which
affirmed his Judgment on November 12, 2004. See United
States v. Pittman, 388 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir.
2004). However, the petitioner thereafter filed a Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,
which was granted. See Pittman v. United States, 544
U.S. 995 (2005). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the
judgment of the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in
light of the decision in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), which rendered the United States
Sentencing Guideline advisory. Id. The Seventh
Circuit then remanded the matter to the district court to
determine whether it would have imposed the same sentence
under an advisory guideline scheme. See United States v.
Pittman, 418 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2005).
29, 2006, the district court issued a Memorandum & Order
holding that, considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) and the evidence of record, it would impose
the same sentence. (United States v. Pittman, No.
3:01-cr-30108, ECF No. 171). On July 24, 2006, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the final judgment of the district court.
(United States v. Pittman, No. 03-1812 (Jul. 24,
2006) (unpublished)). A Mandate was issued on August 15,
2005. (United States v. Pittman, No. 3:01-cr-20108,
ECF No. 174).
Petitioner's prior post-conviction filings.
October 22, 2007, the petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, which he was subsequently permitted to amend.
(Pittman v. United States, No.
3:07-cv-00742). In those proceedings, the district court
entertained two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
and a claim that the district court did not follow proper
procedure in imposing petitioner's enhancement under 21
U.S.C. § 851. On March 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied
the amended section 2255 motion. (Id., ECF No. 13).
In the Memorandum & Order denying the motion, the court
noted that the petitioner had admitted his prior convictions
at sentencing, and that the Seventh Circuit affirmed the use
of those prior convictions in the sentencing determination.
(Id. at 9).
Petitioner's section 2241 petition.
instant section 2241 petition, which was filed in this court
on November 18, 2014, is not a model of clarity. Although the
petition appears to be challenging the petitioner's
career offender enhancement, it fails to state any details
concerning the petitioner's conviction and sentence
imposed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, and fails to discuss the underlying
prior convictions that were used to enhance his sentence.
Rather, the petition merely states as follows:
COMES NOW, Maurice Pittman . . . and would state that he is
actually innocent of the CCA Enhancement as he proceeds to
challenge in pro se.
Defendant further states his effort to move this Honorable
Court to preserve his possible issue and relief under the new