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.

Crumby v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

February 2, 2018

DAVID LEE CRUMBY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Omar J. Aboulhosn United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the Court are the following: (1) Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document No. 1), filed on August 29, 2017; and (2) Petitioner's “Motion to Close Petition” (Document No. 15), filed on November 3, 2017. By Standing Order, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Document No. 2.) Having examined Petitioner's Petition, the undersigned finds, and hereby respectfully recommends, that Petitioner's Motion be granted and his Petition be dismissed.

         FACT AND PROCEDURE

         A. Instant Section 2241 Petition:

         On August 29, 2017, Petitioner, acting pro se, [1] filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Document No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner appears to allege that the United States is violating his speedy trial rights under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act [“IADA”]. (Id.) Petitioner states that “[o]n August 25, 2016, Federal Probation Officer Jeffery Bella filed for Petitioner's probation to be revoked [and] Chief Judge Robert Chambers issued an order for a hold to be placed on Petitioner.”[2] (Id.) Petitioner complains that this “hold is still in place” and he has never been brought before the Court for any proceedings on the charges. (Id.)

         On September 6, 2017, Petitioner filed his Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Document No. 4.) By Order entered on September 12, 2017, the undersigned granted Petitioner's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and ordered that Respondent file an Answer to the allegations contained in the Petitioner's Application and show cause, if any, why the Writ of Habeas Corpus sought by the Petitioner in this case should not be granted. (Document No. 6.)

         On October 4, 2017, the United States filed its Response to the Order to Show Cause. (Document No. 8.) The United States argues that Petitioner's Petition should be denied based on the following: (1) The IADA affords no relief to Petitioner as “[h]is pending supervised release petition is not an untried indictment, information or complaint;” (Id., pp. 3 - 5.); and (2) Petitioner's Petition is now moot (Id., p. 5.). As Exhibits, the United States attaches the following: (1) A copy of Petitioner's “Guilty Plea and Sentence Order” as filed in the Circuit Court of Cabell County in Information No. 17-F-151 (Document No. 8-1.); and (2) A copy of Petitioner's “Order of Commitment” as filed in the Circuit Court of Cabell County in Information No. 17-F-151 (Document No. 8-2.).

         By Order and Notice entered on October 10, 2017, the undersigned advised Petitioner of his right to file a Reply to the United States' Response. (Document 9.) On October 24, 2017, the United States filed its Supplemental Response again arguing that Petitioner's Petition was moot. (Document No. 11.) In support, the United States noted that Petitioner appeared for his final hearing on the petition to revoke his supervised release on October 23, 2017. (Id.) During the foregoing hearing, Petitioner requested that the petition to revoke supervised release be dismissed on identical grounds cited in the instant Section 2241 Petition. (Id.) The United States, however, notes that the District Court denied Petitioner's request, revoked Petitioner's supervised release, and sentenced Petitioner to a 21-month term of imprisonment. (Id.) Accordingly, the United States concludes that Petitioner's Petition is now moot.

         By Order and Notice entered on October 25, 2017, the undersigned advised Petitioner of his right to file a Reply to the United States' Supplemental Response. (Document 12.) On November 3, 2017, Petitioner filed his “Motion to Close Petition.” (Document No. 15.)

         Specifically, Petitioner stated as follows:

In a separate hearing on October 23, 2017, Chief Judge Robert Chambers ruled on another case that included the core issue in this motion. Therefore, there is no further need for review by this honorable court.

(Id.)

         B. Criminal Action No. 3:05-0144:

         On September 6, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). (No. 3:05-cr-0144, Document No. 27.) On November 14, 2005, the District Court sentenced Petitioner to a 140-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (Id., Document Nos. 32 and 33.) On October 30, 2006, Movant filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (Id., Document No. 52.) As a ground for habeas relief, Petitioner argued that his direct appeal was not pursued because he and his attorney hoped Petitioner would receive the benefit of a motion to reduce sentence. (Id.) The United States filed its Response stating no opposition to a limited award of collateral relief sufficient to allow Petitioner an opportunity to file a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. (Id., Document No. 56.) By Proposed Findings and Recommendation entered on August 25, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley recommended that Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion be granted and a re-sentencing hearing be conducted. (Id., ...


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.