Edwards v. Lara, No. 1:2017cv00281 - Document 12 (E.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/26/18. (ljw, )

Download PDF
Edwards v. Lara Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION RONALD JACK EDWARDS § VS. § WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-281 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner, Ronald Jack Edwards, a federal prisoner currently confined at FCI Beaumont, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After a careful review, this court finds the objections lacking in merit. As outlined by the Magistrate Judge, the Supreme Court has not expressly held that Mathis applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in Hinkle and Tanksley do not compel a different result as the court applied Mathis on direct appeal, not collateral review. United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, Hinkle and Tanksley were decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and not by the Supreme Court. Finally, petitioner challenges a sentencing enhancement. Thus, petitioner’s challenge does not suggest that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See In re Bradford v. Tamez, 660 F.3d Dockets.Justia.com 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011) (“a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the crime of conviction and, thus, is not the type of claim that warrants review under § 2241); Padilla v. United States, 16 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). This Court is bound by Fifth Circuit Court precedent and petitioner’s objections lack merit. ORDER Accordingly, the petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. SIGNED this the 26 day of October, 2018. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2

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.