Abdul-Sabur v. United States of America, No. 7:2018cv00107 - Document 38 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/27/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKSOFFICE M.S.DSST.COUFI ATROANOKEZVA FILED IN TH E UN ITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FO R TIIE W ESTER N DISTRICT O F W R G IN IA R OA NO K E D IW SIO N ALc 27 2219 BK JULI .Duoy , Enjyy , Ep rrv cL x W AK EEL A BDU L-SABUR Petitioner, U NITED STATES O F AM ERICA R espondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.7:18CV00107 G M ORANDUM OPINION By:GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge Petitioner,W akeelA bdul-sabur,aV irginia inm ateproceeding pro K ,fled thispetition for awritofhabeascorpusunder28U.S.C.52241.Abdul-saburchallengeshisfutureconfinement under the sentence im posed by this courton M ay 31,2000,Case N o.6:99CR30073. Federal authoritieshavelodgedadetainerwiththeVirginiaDepartmentofCorrectionsC(VD0C''),based on A bdul-sabur's federal sentence. Upon review of the record,the court concludes that the governm ent's m otion to dism issthe petition m ustbe granted. 1. A bdul-sabur is serving state prison sentences totaling 57 years and four m onths for convictions under V irginia law . On M arch 8,2000,Abdul-saburpleaded guilty in this court, pursuantto awritten plea agreem ent,to CountOneofan indictm ent,charging him w ith tw o counts ofmailingathreateningcommunication,inviolationof18U.S.C.j876,whileincarcerated.The Abdul-Sabur v. United States of America Doc. 38 presentenceinvestigationreport(GSPSR'')describedtheoffenseconduct: On June 1, 1999,M s.Liz Taulane,a socialworker in Charlottesville,V irginia, received a letter from the A mherst,V irginia, County Jail,postm arked M ay 25. 1999. The letterwasprofane and am ong otherthings,stated,EtY ou can't stop an inevitable event,bitch. lknow w here you are,and 1am going to seeto itthatyou are confronted ...N o courtorder can calloffthis inevitable event in regards to Dockets.Justia.com you.D on'tyou ever accuse m e ofanything,bitch,forthe restofyour shortlife.'' Theenvelopeborearet' urnaddressinthenameofWakeel(Abdul-qsaburwiththe m ailing addressofthe Am herstCounty Jail. On June 4,1999,a second letter,postm arked June 1,1999,and bearing the sam e return addressbutno author'snam eon the envelope,wasreceived by M s.Taulane. This letter also w as profane and am ong other things, stated, Ssl'm gonna have som eone beat the shit outof you.'' Both letters were received at M s.Taulane's w ork address. N either letter w as signed; how ever, M s.Taulane believed that gAbdul-sabur)hadauthoredbothletters. OnJuly l5,1999,Mr.(Abdul-zsabùrwasintelviewedbyapostalinspectoratthe A m herstCounty Jail.The defendantacknow ledged authoring the lqtters.H estated thathe wrote the lettersafterattempting to contactM s.Taulane by telephone. He said he did not intend to cause M s.Taulane any bodily harm butwrote herto get her attention and to scare her, because he believed M s.Taulane was trying to preventhiscontactwithajuvenilefemalewhowasaclientofM s.Taulane's. PSR !!3-5,No.6:99CR30073,ECFNo.45.UnderAbdul-sabur'spleaagreement,inexchange forhis guilty plea to CountOne,the governm entagreed to dism iss CountTw o and to forego an offense-levelenhancementunderj 3A1.2oftheU.S.Sentencing GuidelinesManual(GUSSG'') becausehisvictim wasagovernmentofficial. 1d.at! 5. Despitethesebeneficialprovisions, Abdul-saburlaterm oved to w ithdraw his guilty plea,butthe courtdenied hism otion. The PSR found thatAbdul-saburqualified asacarelroffenderunderUSSG j 48 1.1, becausehisinstantoffensequaliled asacrimeofviolence,asdefinedby USSG j481.2(a),and hehad atleasttwopriorfelony convictionsforcrim esofviolence.The careeroffenderdesignation increased Abdul-sabur's offense levelby fourpoints,resulting in a U SSG sentencing guideline range of 37 to 46 m onths in prison. Judge N orm an K .M oon,to whom the case was originally assigned,sentenced him to 46 m onths in prison to be served consecutive to any othersentence. 2 A bdul-saburappealed the court'sdenialofhism otion to w ithdraw the guilty plea and the enhancementofhis sentence underthe careeroffenderguideline. The courtof appeals affirm ed thejudgment.UnitedStatesv.Sabur,238F.3d417(4thCir.2000)(unpublished),cert.denied, 532U.S.936(2001). ln A prilof2005,A bdul-sabur filed a m otion to vacate,setaside orcorrecthis sentence pursuantto28U.S.C.j2255.Thecourtsummarilydismissedhisj2255motionasuntimelyfiled 1 1 and withoutmerit. Abdul-saburv.United States,CaseNo.7:05-cv-00189 (W .D.Va.2005). A bdul-saburdid notappeal. H e has also broughtotherunsuccessfulpost-conviction relieffrom hisfederalconviction and sentence. Abdul-saburfiled thishabeaspetition underj2241 in March of2018. ln hisseveral submissions,hecontendsthatneither18U.S.C.j876,thestatuteunderwhichhewasconvicted form ailing athreatening com m unication,noreitherofthepriorconvictionsused aspredicatesfor the careeroffenderenhancem ent,is categorically a crim e ofviolence in lightofM athisv.United States,136S.Ct.2243(2016).Abdul-saburasksthiscourttovacatehissentenceandtocalculate a new sentence w ithoutthe careeroffenderenhancem ent. The govem menthas filed a m otion to dism iss,and A bdul-saburhasresponded,.making the m atterripe fordisposition. 1I. Therespondentfrstcontendsthatthiscourtdoesnothavesubjectmatterjurisdictionto addressAbdul-sabur's j2241petition,becausehe iscurrently in custody undera state court judgmentandnotunderthefederalcriminaljudgmentheischallenging.Itiswellestablishedthat an inm ate m ay file a habeas corpuschallenge to the validity of a crim inalsentence thathe isnot yet serving,butw illbe required to serve in the future,pursuantto a consecutive sentence or a detainerfrom anotherjurisdiction.SeeWhittleseyv.Cir.Ct.forBaltimoreCty-sM d.,897F.2d 143,148(4thCir.1990)(holdingthatwhereFloridaauthoritiesheld defendantunderMaryland detainer,defendantisidin custody''under28 U.S.C.j 224l(c)(3)forpurposesofchallenging Marylandconviction)(citingBradenv.30thJud.Cir.Ct.ofKv.,410U.S.484,489 n.4 (1973). Thus,the courtconcludesthatAbdul-saburisiiin custody''forpurposesof j2241underthe federaldetainerbasedonthefederaljudgmenthechallengeshere. The respondent next argues that Abdul-sabur has not dem onstrated that this courthas jurisdictiontoaddresshishabeaschallengestothefederaljudgmentagainsthim intheguiseofa j2241petition.Aftercarefulreview oftheparties'submissionsandtherecord,thecourtagrees. A prisonermustgenerallyfileamotionunderj2255tocollaterallyattackthelegality of hisfuturedetentionunderafederalconvictionorsentence.28U.S.C.j22554*;Davisv.United States,417U.S.333,343(1974).A districtcourtcannotentertainapetitionforawritofhabeas corpusunderaj2241petition challengingthevalidity ofan inmate'sdetentionunderafederal courtjudgmentunlessamotionpursuantto28U.S.C.j2255isçGinadequateorineffectivetotest thelegalityof(thatinmate'sqdetention.''28U.S.C.j2255/)(tçthesavingsclause'');UnitedSGtes v.W heeler.886F.3d415,423(4thCir.2018),cert.denied,139S.Ct.1316(2019)(holdingthat satisfaction ofthesavingsclause in j2255/)isEjurisdictional''and thusdetermineswhether j2241petitioncanbeentertainedata1l).TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuit hasconcludedthatj2255isinadequateandineffectivetotestthelegalityofasentencewhen: (1)atthetime ofsentencing,settled law ofthiscircuitorthe Supreme Court established the legality ofthe sentence;(2)subsequentto the prisoner'sdirect appealand firstj2255motion,theaforementionedsettledsubstantive1aw changed and wasdeemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3)the prisoneris unabletomeetthegatekeepingprovisionsofj22551)42)forsecondorsuccessive motions;and(4)duetothisretroactivechange,thesentencenow presentsanerror suftk iently grave to be deem ed a fundam entaldefect. 4 W heeler.886 F.3d at429. Abdul-sabur's claim s fail under the second W heeler factor. ln essence,A bdul-sabur argues thatif the courtapplied the categoricalapproach outlined in M athis to his offense under j:76andtothestateIawsatissueintheconvictionsusedascareeroffenderpredicateoffenses, they would no longer qualify as crimes of violence for purposes of the career offender enhancem ent. The problem w ith this argum entis thatM athis did notchange settled substantive law . A sthe Fourth Circuithasexplained: Descampsrv.UnitedStates.570U.S.254(2013))andM athisdidnotannouncea retroactively applicable substantive change in the Iaw . Rather, these cases reiteratedand clarified theapjlication ofthecategoricalapproach ormodified categoricalapproach,to determ lne whetherpriorconvictions qualify aspredicates forrecidivistenhancements.SeeMathis,l36S.Ct.at2257(çGourprecedentsmake thisastraightforwardcase.'');Descamos,570U.S.at260(notingthatCourt'sprior caselaw explainingcategoricalapproach$$allbutresolvesthiscase'');UnitedStates v.Roval,731F.jd 333,340 (4th Cir.2013)(ç:ln Descamos,the SupremeCourt recentlyclarifiedwheln)courtsmayapplythemodifedcategoricalapproach.'). Brooksv.Braag,735F.App'x 108,109(4thCir.2018);Muhammadv.W ilson.715F.App'x251, 252 (4th Cir.2017)(GM athisdid notannounce asubstantive changeto the law.'');Waddv v. W arden,FC1Petersburg,No.3:17CV802,2019W L 3755496,at*3-4 (E.D.Va.Aug.8,2019) (dismissing j2241uponfndingthatbecauseM athiswasnota<fretroactivelyapplicablechance inthesubstantive law subsequentto (defendant'sqdirectappealand histirstj2255motion,he cannotsatisfy therequirementofW heeler'')(quoting Brooks,735 F.App'x at109)(emphasis added). ' Becausem derWheelerOdthesavkgsclauseofj22ss(e),Abdul-saburdoesnotqualify' forsentencingrellefunderj2241,thecourtwillFantthemotiontodlsmissanddismisshisclslmq ltwithoutpreludiceforwantofJurisdicuon-''lLd=at4.Anappropriateorderwlllenterthlsday. 'fheClerk isdirectedtosendcopiesofthismemorandum opinlon andaccompanyingorder topetifonerandtocolmgelofrrcord fortherespondent, Em R : n is J'l dayofAugust 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 1 Inanyevent,evO post-M athis.Abdtll-sabur'soFenjehasb= dœmedat m'm:ofviolenceunderUSSG j4B12(a)(1).See.e.g..UnitedSmtesv.Chaomam 866F.3d 129,134-35(3d Cir.2014 (holdl -ngthat18U.S.C. j876isadvisiblesfnf-enndtllatacondcdonformm'llngcommunicadonsw1t11athrot4%oKJUX 'anotllerf%11K squarelywitll: 'nthecaree, roffenderenhancement'sdefmidon oftcrlmeofviolence'D. 6
]]>
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.
