Alley v. Warden, No. 3:2019cv00339 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 5/26/2020. (sbea,)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alley v. Warden Doc. 7 Case 3:19-cv-00339-JAG-RCY Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CHADLEY DEAN ALLEY, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:19CV339 WARDEN, FCC PETERSBURG, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Chadley Dean Alley, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to . Alley claims that in light of the decisions Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1318 (2019), he was improperly sentenced to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (§ 2241 Pet. 7.)1 Respondent has moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) Because the Court already has addressed I. ANALYSIS A. Prior Litigation Just as he does now, Alley previously asserted that in the wake of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering no longer qualify as predicates for imposing an enhanced Alley v. Wilson, at 1 3:17CV637 (E.D. 1 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-00339-JAG-RCY Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 50 Va. July 17, 2018 Alley I previously, the Court found: As noted by the Supreme Court Federal law forbids certain people-such as convicted felons, persons committed to mental institutions, and drug users-to ship, possess, and receive firearms. § 922(g). In general, the law § 924(a)(2). But if the violator has three or more earlier convictions Criminal Act increases his prison term to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life. § 924(e)(1). Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2555 (2015) (citation omitted). The Armed Career Criminal A an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2556. In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2557. ACCA following Johnson, it must qualify either under the enumerated offense United States v. McNatt (4th Cir. 2018). Petitioner was found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (ECF No. 1, at 3.) Petitioner received an enhanced sentence under ACCA based upon his three prior North Carolina Id.) Petitioner contends: Although the Fourth Circuit previously held that such prior statutory sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), it has recently questioned that holding now in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See United States v. Brown . Nov. 18, 2016). . . . In light of Johnson and Mathis, and entering convictions] no longer qualify as predicate conviction[s] for purposes of § 924(e) . . . . (Id.) Petitioner is wrong. Just last month, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed that, in the wake of Johnson and Mathis, North Carolina breaking and entering qualifies as a violent felony for ACCA under the enumerated offense clause. McNatt, 727 F. 2 Case 3:19-cv-00339-JAG-RCY Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 51 d entering statute criminalizes no more than generic burglary and is an enumerated United States v. Beatty 1) will be DENIED. Id. at 1 3. The Court also considered the decision in Wheeler Id. at 1 n.1. B. Abuse of the Writ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 : No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in section 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Although § 2241 is not specifically referenced in § 2244(a), [i]t has become well established that § 2244(a), as amended by the AEDPA, bars second or successive § 2241 applications that seek to relitigate issues that were adjudicated in a prior § 2241 proceeding Quiller v. Wilson, No. 1:12cv426 (LO/JFA), 2012 WL 6725612, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 2012), sub nom. Quiller v. Blackburns 384 (4th Cir. 2013); see Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) ( of a § 2241 petition as successive toward his sentence to which he was petition raising the same grounds for relief, which had been denied on the merits); Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 55 (3d Cir. 2008) § 2241 petition, in which the petitioner had sought to challenge the same institutional conviction that he had challenged in a prior § 2241 petition); Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 695 (7th 3 Case 3:19-cv-00339-JAG-RCY Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 52 successive petitions under § 2241 directed to the same ; Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474 75 (2d Cir. 1997) (dismissing the petition, which comput pursuant to Similarly, prior to the enactment of the statutory bar on successive habeas petitions, the the , which limited the review of successive habeas petitions. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 490 96 (1991). Under the abuse of the a court could decline to hear a claim that was both raised and adjudicated in an Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262, 1270 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 11 12 (1963)). Further, in applying the abuse of the w Id. (citation omitted). ven if the same ground was rejected on the merits on a prior application, it is open to the applicant to show that the ends of justice would be served by permitting the redetermination of the ground Sanders, 373 U.S. at 16. Here, Alley fails to demonstrate that the ends of justice warrant consideration of his Present § 2241 Petition.2 Accordingly, for these reasons, the § 2241 Petition will be DENIED. 2 If the Court were to address the merits of for the same reasons that the claim was rejected in Alley I. 4 , the claim would be dismissed Case 3:19-cv-00339-JAG-RCY Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 53 II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) will be GRANTED. claim and the action will be DISMISSED. The § 2241 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: 26 May 2020 Richmond, Virginia 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
