Hubbard v. Zych, No. 7:2015cv00002 - Document 29 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/06/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERJCS OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED NU? ()2 2g12 IA C,D(DLEY,CLERK IN THE UM TED STATES DISTRICT COURT BYJUL : FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA D-. t rx Q . R O AN O K E DIV ISIO N CR EA DELL H U BBA RD , CASE NO .7:15CV0#002 Petitioner, CH W STO PH E R ZY C H ,W A RD EN , R espondent. CREADELL HUBBARD, CASE NO .7:15CV00599 Petitioner, M EM OR AO UM OPINION CH AR I,ES M TLED G E,W AR D EN , By: H on.G len E.C onrad Senior United States D istrictJudge R espondent. Creadell Hubbard,a federal inm ate at the United States Penitentiary in Lee County, V irginia,proceeding pro K,sledthesehabeascorpuspetitionsunder28U.S.C.j2241. In l ais . firstpetition,Hubbard assertsthatin lightofUnited Statesv.Descamps,570 U.S.254 (2013), hissentence isllnlawful,and the courtshould now revisitit. In the second,he contendsthathis sentence exceeded the statm ory m aximum and m ustbe corrected. Upon review ofthe record, thecourtconcludesthatthepetitionsmustbesummarilydismissedforlackofjluisdiction-l Backzround Hubbard v. Zych Doc. 29 A juryintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNorthCarolinafound Hubbardguilty ofbnnkrobberybyuseofadangerousweapontcountOne),possessionoruseof 1SeeRules1(b)& 4,RulesGoverning Section2254Cases(authorizingdismissalofhabeaspetitionwhere itplainly appearsfrom faceofpetitionthatpetitionerisnotentitled tohabeasrelief). Dockets.Justia.com a lirearm . during acrime ofviolence tcountTwo),possession ofstolen money tcolmtThree), and conspiracy to possess stolen money (Count Four). Urlited States v. Hubbard, No. 5:88CR00040. On April21, 1989,the courtsentenced Hubbard to 327 m onths in prison on ColmtOne,with CotmtsThree and Fourm erged into thatcount;60 m onths in prison on Cotmt Two,consecutiveto thesentence on the othercounts;andtlu'eeyearsofsupervised release.z His appealwastmsuccessful. United Statesv.Hubbard,919F.2d734 (4th Cir.1990),cert.denied, 499 U.S.969 (1991). Hubbard also fled amotion to vacate,setaside orcorrectthe sentence under28U.S.C.j2255thatwasdenied.United Statesv.Hubbard,Nos.CR-88-40;CA-97-320BO (E.D.N.C.Aug.3,1999),appealdism'd,United Statesv.Hubbard,210F.3d 363(4th Cir. 2000)(unpublished). In July 2014,the United States CourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuit deniedhismotiontmder28U.S.C.j2244(b)(3)(A)tofileasecond orsuccessivej2255motion, raisinghiscurrentclaim tmderDescnm ps. In the firstofthese j2241 petitions,Hubbard assertsthatthe district courterred in Gnding him eligible foran enhanced sentence underthe CareerOffenderprovision oftheUnited StatesSentencing Guidelines,based on hispriorconvictions. Specifk ally,Hubbard assertsthat, in light of the holding in Descamps,3 his 1976 conviction forthird-degree burglary under Kentucky 1aw no longerqualifiesasa crime ofviolence,to make itapriorpredicate felony fora Career Offender enhancement. In February of 2015,the courtsumm arily dism issed the case, holdingthatHubbardhad notmetthestandard underIn reJones,226 F.3d 328(4th Cir.2000) andj2255(e)toshow thathecoulèchallengehissentenceinaj2241petition. 2 SeeOrder,ECFN6.28(attachedcopyofJudgment). 3 In D escamps, theSupreme CourtoftheUnited Statesheld thatasentencing courtmay notlook beyond the textofan indivisible stattzte,which isa statutethatdoesnotsetoutone ormoreelementsoftheoffense hlthe alternative,and review certain documentswhen detennining ifa defendantis an Armed CareerCriminalunder 18 U.S.C.j924(e).133S.Ct.at2281-82. 2 Inthesecond j2241petition,No.7:15CV00599,Hubbard claimsthatthecourterred in sentencing him to 327 m onths in prison,when the maximllm sentence allowed under 18 U.S.C. j2113(d)was300months(25 years). Again,thecourtsummarily dismissedthecase,holding thatHubbard had notmade the required showingstmderIn re Jone,and j2255/)to proceed tmderj2241. Hubbard appealed the dism issals of both cases.4 The courtof appeals fotmd thathis claim s should be considered under its recent decisions in United States v.W heeler,886 F.3d 415,426(4th Cir.2018),andLesterv.Floumoy,909F.3d708(4thCir.2018),andremandedthe casesççforf'urtherconsideration ofthepetitiongs),including any relevantjurisdictionalissues.'' Hubbardv.Zych,747F.App'x 186(4thCir.2019);Hubbardv.Ratledge,747F.App'x 187(4th Cir.2019). Thiscourtstayed consideration ofthe petitionsuntilthe United States Supreme Courtdenied the United States' petition for a writ of certiorad in W heeler. Thereafter,the United Statesfiled motionsto dismissthepetitionsasm oot.Hubbard hasresponded,makingthe m otionsripeforconsideration. W henHubbardfledhisj2241petitionsandforsometimethereafter,hewasconfinedat theUnited StatesPenitentiary in Lee Cotmty,Virginia (GûUSP Lee''). On M arch 23,2018,he com pleted hisfederalprison terms and wasplaced on supervised release in the Eastern District ofNorth Carolina. A m onth later,his supervision was transferred to the Southern District of lndiana. 4 W hile these caseswere on appeal, Hubbard soughtand obtained courtofappeals certification to file a successivej2255motion in theEastern DistrictofNorth Carolina. In reHubbard,825 F.3d 225,227 (4th Cir. 2016). In this j2255 motion,he argued thathismandatory Sentencing GuidelinescareeroFendersentence is tmconstimtionalundertheruleannounced inJohnson v.UnitedStates,l35S.Ct.2:51(2015). Thedistrictcourt dismissedthepetitioninAugustof2019asuntimelyfiledinlightofUnitedStatesv.Brown,868F.3d297(4thCir. 2017)(holdingthataJohnson challengetoasentenceimposedunderthethen-mandatorySentencing Guidelinesis tmtimely,inlightofBecklesv.UnitedStates,137S.Ct.886(2017:. 3 D iscussion Section 2241(c)authorizesthiscourttogranthabeasrelieftoaprisonerwhoisboth çlirl custody tmderorby colorofthe authority ofthe United States''and Gçin custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'' A former federalprisoner, like Hubbazd, who is serving a term of supervised release, qualifies as being Gtin custody'' for purposesofseelcing habeasrelief. See United Statesv.Precent,190 F.3d 279,283 (4th.Cir. 1999). TheUnited StatesConstimtion limitsthejurisdiction offederalcourtsto acmal,ongoing cases orcontroversies. U.S.Const.,art.111,j 2;Honi: v.Doe,484 U.S.305,317 (1988). 'sW hen a case orcontroversy ceasesto exist---eitherdueto a change in the factsorthe law- the litigation ismoot,and the court'ssubjectmatterjmisdiction ceasesto existalso.'' Porterv. Clarke,852F.3d 358,363 (4th Cir.2017).5 In ahabeascorpuscase,Gslnjo caseorcontroversy existsunlessthe petitionerhas suffered an actualinjury thatcan be redressed by a favorable judicialdecision.'' Spencerv.Kemna,523U.S.1,7(1998).Ifthej2241petitionerhasserved hispdson term and ilis supervised release term,no live controversy existsthatthe courtcould resolvebyaddressingllischallengetothelegality ofhiscriminalsentence,andthej2241claim ismoot.SeeUnitedStatesv.Hardy,545F.3d280,283-84(4thCir.2008). ln response to the m otionsto dismiss,Hubbard contendsthathissentence challenges are notm oot. He assertsthatifhis sentencewasheld invalid,the courtcould choose to reduce his term ofsupervisedrelease. See,e.z.,Popev.Perdue,889F.3d410,414 (7th Cir.2018)CtWhen aformerinm atestillselwing aterm ofsupervisedreleasechallengesthe length orcomputation of his sentence,his case is not m oot so long as he could obtain any potential benefit from a 5 The coul' thas omitted internalquotation marks,alterations, and citations here and throughoutthis opinion,unlessothem isenoted. 4 favorabledecision-''). TheUnited Stateshasnotdemonstrated thatHubbard could notbeneft from a favorable decision on hisj2241claim,and the courtcnnnotso fnd. See,e.g.,United Statesv.Johnson,529 U.S.53,59-60 (2000)(holding thatalthough snding inmate spenttoo much time in prison would notautomatically entitle him to less supervised release orm odised conditions ofrelease,itwould carry ûçequitable considerations ofgreatw eight''in a motion to reduce histerm ofsupervised releasetmder28U.S.C.j3583). Theavailability ofapotential benefitf' rom adecision on the j2241claim issuftkienttopreventthatclaim from being moot. Pope,889 F.3d at414;see also United Statesv.Epps,707 F.3d 337,345 (D.C.Cir.2013); M uinhidv.Dnniels,413F.3d 991,994-95 (9th Cir.2005).Forthestated reasons,the courtwill denythemotionstodismissthej2241petitionsasmoot. TheUnited Statesalsoarguesthatintheeventthecourtconcludesthatthej2241claims arenotm oot,the casesshould betransferred to theUzlited StatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthern DistrictofIndiana,whereHubbard isserving hissupervised release. See 28 U.S.C.j2241(a) (providingthatm itofhabeascopusGtshallbeentered intherecordsofthedistrictcourtofthe districtwhereintherestraintcomplainedofishad'').ltiswellestablished,hpwever,thatbecause Hubbardwasconfined atUSPLees'within thejurisdictionofthiscourt,whenhefiledthisj2241 petitions,thiscourtççretainsjttrisdictipn''to addresshisclaims. Rumsfeld v.Padilla,542 U.S. 426,441(2004).Accordingly,thecourtwilldenytheUnitedStates'motions. Although theUnited StatesdidnotmovefordismissalofHubbard'sj2241petitionson any substantive grotmd,the courtfinds that sllmmary dismissalfor lack ofjmisdiction is warranted. A prisoner generally musttsle a motion under j 2255 to collaterally attack the ligality ofhisdetention tmdérafederalconviction orsentence. 28U.S.C.j2255(a);Davisv. United States,417 U.S.333,343 (1974). A districtcourtcallnot entertain a habeas corpus petitionunderj2241challengingafederalcourtjudgmentunlessamotionptlrsuantto28U.S.C. j2255 istsinadequateorineffictivetotestthelegalityof(thatinmate'sqdetention.'' 28 U.S.C. j2255(e)(Gtthesavingsclause');W heeler,886 F.3dat423. ççg-rlheremedy afforded by j2255 isnotrendered inadequateorineffectivem erely because an individualhasbeen tmableto obtain relieftmderthatprovision,orbecausean individualisprocedurallybarred from filinga j2255. motion-''InreVial,115 F.3d 1192,1194n.5 (4thCir.1997).lnthiscircuit,aj2255motion is inadequateand ineffectiveto testthelegality ofa sentencewhen: (1)atthe time ofsentencing,settled 1aw ofthis circuitorthe Supreme Cottrt established the legality ofthe sentence;(2)subsequentto the prisoner's direct appeal and tsrst j 2255 motion,the aforementioned settled substantive 1aw changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3) the prisonerisunableto meetthegatekeepingprovisionsofj2255419(2)forsecond orsuccessivemotions;and (4)due to thisretroactive change,the sentencenow presentsan errorsuftk iently graveto be deem ed afundnm entaldefect. W heeler,886F.3dat429.Thesetlsavingsclauserequirementsarejmisdictional.''1d.at426. In No.7:15CV00002,Hubbard assertsthathe is entitled to have his sentence revisited under this W heeler standard because of the United States Suprem e Court's 2013 decision in Descnmpsthatocctm'ed severalfearsafterHubbard'sappealand initialj2255proceedings. How ever, Descnmpsand gthe related decision injM athisdid notnnnotmce aretro' actively applicable substantive change in the law . Rather, these cases reiterated and clarised the application ofthe categoricalapproach or the m odifed categorical approach, to determine whether prior convictions qualify as predicates for recidivistenhancements. SeeMathis,136 S.Ct.at2257 (tiourprecedentsmake thisastraightforward case.'');Descnmbs,570U.S.at260,133S.Ct.2276(noting thatCourt's prior case 1aw explaining categorical approach çlall butresolves this case'');UnitedStatesv.Royal,731F.3d333,340(4th Cir.2013)($GIn Descnmps, the Supreme Courtrecently clarified wheln) courts may apply the modified categoricalapproach''). Brooksv.Bracc,735 F.App'x 108,109 (4th Cir.2018)(tmpublished). Because Hubbard's j2241petition doesnotrely on aretroactivelv applicablechangein substantive1aw subsequent to hisdirectappealand firstj 2255 motion,hecnnnotsatisfy therequirementsofW heelerto bring his petition under the savings clause in j22554$. Accordingly,the courtiswithout jurisdictiontoaddresshisclaim tmderj2241andwillsummarilydismisshispetition.6 In No.7:15CV00599, Hubbard asserts that his 327-month prison sentence for bank robbery exceedsthe maximum sentence authorized under 18 U.S.C.j2113(d). Based on the dismissalofllispriorj2255motion,heassertsthattheremedy irij2255isnotavailabletohim and hemay pursuehisillegalsentence claim under j2241. He ismistaken. He could have raised hissentence challenge on directappealorin hisj2255motions,buthe failed to do so. Because Hubbard has notsatisfied the requirem ents ofW heelerto bring hispetition tmderthe savingsclausein j2255($,the courtiswithoutjurisdiction to addresshisclaim underj2241. Therefore,the courtwillsllmmarily dismiss his petition. An appropriate order willenter this day. The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthismem orandum opinion and accom panying orderto theparties. ENTER:This l dayofNovember,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 6 UnderRule4 oftheRulesGoverning Section 2254 Cases, whi chmaybeappliedto j2241casesunder Rule109,ifitappearsfrom thefaceofaj2241petitionandanyattachedexhibitsthatthepetitionerisnotentitled toreliefin thedisàictcourt,thecourtmustdismissthepetition. 7
]]>
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.
