Reynolds v. United States Of America, No. 4:2015cv02450 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

Download PDF
Reynolds v. United States Of America Doc. 15 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED December 10, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LAUREN E. REYNOLDS, Register No. 86893-180, David J. Bradley, Clerk § § § § Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2450 § § § § § § v. MARNE BOYLE, Warden, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, Lauren E. Reynolds, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. (Docket Entry No. 1). § 2241 By Pro Se Petitioner The United States has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11), to which Reynolds has filed a "Traverse in Reply" (Docket Entry No. 14). The summary judgment evidence establishes the following facts. On August 31, prison by the 2010, Reynolds was sentenced to 120 months in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 922(g). When she committed the § 922(g) violation Reynolds was on supervised release from a previous drug conviction in the Western District of Texas. The supervised release petition was transferred to the Northern District of Texas, which revoked Reynolds' supervised release and sentenced her to a 24 -month Dockets.Justia.com sentence to be served consecutively with her 922(g) § sentence. Reynolds appealed both sentences, and both sentences were affirmed by the Fifth Circuit on June 3, 2011, in a consolidated appeal. Reynolds then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate both sentences, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Northern District of Texas denied her § The 2255 motion on April 5, 2012; and the Fifth Circuit dismissed her appeal on June 28, 2012, for want of prosecution. Reynolds then petitioned Circuit for permission to file a successive § the Fifth 2255 motion. Fifth Circuit denied the motion on July 22, 2015. The While the Fifth Circuit was considering her motion, Reynolds filed a second § 2255 motion in the Northern District of Texas. On April 22, 2015, the Northern motion District jurisdiction as a dismissed successive Reynolds' § 2255 motion. before the Fifth Circuit and her successive § for lack Reynolds' of motion 2255 motion filed in the Northern District of Texas argued that she was innocent of the § 922(g) conviction, that she should have received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and that her sentences should not have been imposed to run consecutively. the first two of these claims in her pending § Reynolds raises 2241 motion. Because Reynolds is attacking the validity of her federal sentence, § not the manner in which the sentence was executed, a 2255 motion is the proper means of collaterally attacking her federal sentence. Pack v. Yusuff, Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000), 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. -2- 2000). In certain rare situations a 2241 petition attacking a federal sentence may be § considered if the petitioner can establish that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. meet AEDPA's § 2255 Reynolds § 'second or successive' inadequate or ineffective. has shown no basis for However, "the inability to requirement, Tolliver, attacking does not make 211 her F.3d at 878. sentence under 2241. Because Reynolds has not shown that she is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this lOth day of December, 2015. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.