Tate v. Warden, No. 1:2018cv00661 - Document 5 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 2 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 3/13/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tate v. Warden Doc. 5 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAK' | ^ | | | | g 1 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA D I V I S I O N HERMAN LEE TATE, BOP I D # 13566-058, HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 4 1 Petitioner, C I V I L ACTION F I L E NO. 1:18-CV-661-ODE-JKL V . WARDEN, USP ATLANTA, Respondent ORDER T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t o n t h e M a g i s t r a t e Judge's O r d e r and Final Report a n d Recommendation objections thereto (Doc. 2 ) , a n d P e t i t i o n e r ' s (Doc. 4 ) . I n r e v i e w i n g a M a g i s t r a t e Judge's R&R, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t make a de novo determination o f those "shall portions o f the report or s p e c i f i e d proposed f i n d i n g s o r recommendations t o w h i c h o b j e c t i o n i s made." 28 U.S.C. § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . magistrate's those findings objections States Marsden report V. objected to. v. Moore, reject, recommendations on specifically conclusive, by t h e d i s t r i c t 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 ( 1 1 t h C i r . made i n whole by of or i npart, the magistrate satisfy itself t h e record" i n order Fed. R. C i v . P. 72, a d v i s o r y o r general United 2009) 1988)) (quoting (internal j u d g e "may t h e f i n d i n g s and [judge]," that toa identify court." Absent o b j e c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t o r modify, t h e face recommendation. objections 565 F.3d 1353, 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . § 636 (b) ( 1 ) , a n d "need o n l y error Frivolous, need n o t be c o n s i d e r e d Schultz, filing a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n must q u o t a t i o n marks o m i t t e d ) . accept, "Parties there 28 U.S.C. i s no c l e a r t o accept t h e c o m m i t t e e n o t e , 1983 Dockets.Justia.com Addition, Subdivision (b) . I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h 28 U.S.C. § 6 3 6 ( b ) (1) a n d R u l e 72 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l conducted a de novo Petitioner objects plain Cir. error. review o f those a n d has r e v i e w e d See United Procedure, t h e Court has portions t h e remainder States v. Slay, o f t h e R&R f o r 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th 1983). Petitioner objects t o t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he h a s n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e s a v i n g c l a u s e i n t h i s case. 28 o f t h e R&R t o w h i c h U.S.C. Spencer § 2255 i s n o t adequate v. United States, banc) . I n Spencer, a P e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t t o address h i s claims, 773 F.3d 1132, 1138 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2014) ( e n § 22 55 movant argued that he h a d been m i s c l a s s i f l e d as a c a r e e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g The E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t h e l d citing that guidelines. " [w]hen a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r , sentenced b e l o w t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum, c o m p l a i n s o f s e n t e n c i n g e r r o r a n d does not prove e i t h e r actual prior conviction, that a court the prisoner sentencing justice," error as r e q u i r e d c a n n o t s a t i s f y t h e demanding s t a n d a r d resulted t o obtain f u r t h e r noted t h a t guidelines innocence o f h i s crime o r t h e v a c a t u r o f a i n a complete § 2255 r e l i e f . miscarriage of Id. a t 1139. "[a]misapplication of advisory The sentencing . . . does n o t . . . r a i s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n c e r n s . " Id. A c c o r d i n g t o P e t i t i o n e r , Spencer s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n that a t 1140. t h e § 2255 remedy i s i n a d e q u a t e t o a d d r e s s h i s c l a i m , thus s a t i s f y i n g the stands saving clause. The C o u r t disagrees. Spencer p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t § 2255 c a n n o t be u s e d t o c h a l l e n g e a of t h e sentencing guidelines. Petitioner's -2- life f o r the misapplication s e n t e n c e was n o t imposed based guidelines. on a c a r e e r . Rather, offender hislife status sentence under was imposed p u r s u a n t U.S.C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , w h i c h imposes a m a n d a t o r y l i f e a defendant has t w o o r more p r i o r s u c h . a c l a i m may n o t have t h e sentencing f e l o n y drug been u l t i m a t e l y t o 21 sentence convictions. successful, when While Petitioner c o u l d have r a i s e d h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s p r i o r f e l o n y d r u g c o n v i c t i o n s should n o t have been u s e d as a b a s i s t o impose s e n t e n c e u n d e r § 8 4 1 i n a § 2255 m o t i o n . Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, a mandatory See McCarthan Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1090-91 v. Dir. of (11th C i r . 2 0 1 7 ) , c e r t , denied, 138 S. Ct. 502 (Dec. 4, 2017) ( n o t i n g t h a t of success on t h e m e r i t s a r e [ n o t ] r e l e v a n t inquiry"). failed t o t h e saving "odds clause As t h e M a g i s t r a t e Judge n o t e d i n t h e R&R, P e t i t i o n e r has t o show t h a t t h e s a v i n g c l a u s e a p p l i e s i n t h i s Petitioner's modify, life or o b j e c t i o n s do n o t i n d i c a t e set aside the conclusions A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e o b j e c t i o n s a r e OVERRULED. the remainder case.^ a basis reached t o reject, i n t h e R&R. F i n d i n g no c l e a r e r r o r i n o f t h e R&R, t h e C o u r t ADOPTS t h e R&R as t h e O r d e r a n d Opinion o f t h i s Court. I T I S SO ORDERED t h i s 13 d a y o f March, 2 0 1 8 . ORINDA D. EVANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ^The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t P e t i t i o n e r h a s a s s e r t e d t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s i n v a l i d i n l i g h t o f Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 ( 2 0 1 3 ) , a n d Mathis v. United States, 136 S. C t . 2243 ( 2 0 1 6 ) . Both Descamps a n d Mathis a d d r e s s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Armed C a r e e r C r i m i n a l A c t , 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 4 ( e ) , a n d have no b e a r i n g o n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 8 4 1 ( b ) (1) (A) . -3-
]]>
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.
