Rosario v. Breckon, No. 7:2018cv00255 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/11/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ULERTS OFFICE U.S.DI8% O UFI ATRoa oc ,vA FILEJ; IN TH E UN ITE D STA TES D ISTR ICT CO UR T FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F V IR G IN IA R O A N O K E D IW SION SEF 11 2219 JULK DUD uBK - uvaj'o R AM O N R O SA RIO , IC RK .,'ck K CA SE N O .7:18CV 00255 Petitioner, V. M EM O R AND U M O PINIO N M .BRECKON, By: Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. Rnm on Rosado,a federalinm ateproceeding pro K ,filed thispetition forawritofhabeas . corpusunder28 U.S.C.2241. Relying on United Statesv.W heeler,886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018),28U.S.C.j22554$,andBurragev.United States,571U.S.204 (2014),Rosario seeksto invalidatethesentenceimposed on himfbytheUnited StatesDistrictCottrtfortheM iddleDistrict ofFloridain Septemberof1998,CaseNo.98-100-cr-Or1-22c(S1).Upon review oftherecord, the courtconcludesthattherespondent'sm otion to dism issthepetition mustbe g' ranted. 1. On M arch 21,1998,emergency medicalservices (:GEM S'')personnelresponded to a possibleoverdoseataresidencein Orlando,FloridmlW hen EM S anived, they encotm tered Jnm es Rosenblllm ,a l7-year-old m ale,who wassuffering from respiratory failure and an apprentdnlg overdose.Hism otherwasadm inistering CPR.EM S administeredoxygen andN arcan,adrugthat Rosario v. Breckon Doc. 27 cotmteracts an opiate overdose,and transported him to a hospital. There,he received further treatmentand was adm itted to the intensive care Ilnitin criticalcondition. Toxicology testing 1 Thefactsandproceduralhistory, which arenotdisputed,aretaken9om theparties'submissions,including the copiesofdocllmentsfrom Rosmio's criminalproceedingsattached to the motion to dismiss and courtrecords availableonline. Dockets.Justia.com revealed thepresence ofheroin hydrochlorideand marijuanain Rosenblum'ssystem. He also reportedhaving ingested alcohol,antihistnm inesand antibiotics.Histreatingphysicianultim ately diagnosed Rosenblllm ashaving suffered a heroin overdose. He remained in intensive care for two days. The investigating agent lenrned from Rosenbltlm thathe had ptlrchased the heroin he ingested from KarlosVazquez on M arch 20,1998. The agentthen interviewed Vazquez,who adm itted providingtheheroin to Rosenblum afterpurchasing itf' rom Rosario. A grandjtlryoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheM iddleDistrictofFloridaretllrned a superseding indictm ent,charging Rosario with conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute,inviolation of28U.S.C.j846.Rosariov.UrlitedStates,No.99-6304(M .D.F1.).On June 17,1998,Rosariopleaded guiltyto thechaxge,pttrsuantto awritten pleaagreement. Thepresentenceinvestigationreport(&TSR'')recitedtheoffenseconductsummarizedhere and recom mended thatRosario shotlld be held accotmtable for 2.6 gram s of heroin and the distribution ofheroin thatcaused Rosenblum 'snear-fataloverdose. See Ren.M ot.Dism .Ex.4, ECFNo.14.Assuch,thePSR foundthattmder28U.S.C.j841(b)(1)(C),becausethedistdbution resultedinGçseriousbodily injury,''Rosariowassubjecttoamandatoryminimum sentenceof20 yearsin prison and amaximum oflife.Underj2D1.1(a)(2)oftheU.S.SentencingGuidelines M anual CGUSSIP'I,because the offense resulted in serious bodily injury,the PSR assigned Rosmio'sBaseOffenseLevelat38.W ith athree-pointreduction foracceptanceofresponsibility, hisTotalOffense Levelw ascalculated at35.The PSR also calculated thatRosario,atage 21,had aCrim inalHistory Category VI.Thus,hism andatory sentencingguidelinerangewas292 to 365 months(24years,4months,to30years,5months). Atthesentencing hearing on Septem ber11,1998,thegovernm entmoved forthesentence enhancem entsoutlined in the PSR. Rosenblum 's treating physician testified thatRosenblllm 's condition on M arch 21,1998,presented a seriousrisk oflossoflife withouttreatm ent,based on reportsthatwhen EM S anived,hehad nopulseandwasnotbreatMng,and on hiscondition upon anivalatthe hospital. M ot.Dism .Ex.2,at 10,ECF No.11-2. The doctor also testised that although Rosenbltlm had ingested a combination ofsm allnm ountsofother substances,without theheroin,theseothersubstancescombinedwouldnothavecausedrespiratoryfailure.J. Z at20. Thedoctoraffirm edthatinheropinion,Rosenblum ççwasexperiencing aheroin overdosewhen he cnmetothehospital.'' Id.at21-22. The courtaccepted the PSR and agreed thatthe evidence supported application ofthe j841(b)(1)(C)statutory enhancementand USSG j2D1.1(a)(2),placingthebaseoffenselevelat 38. The courtgranted Rosario a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and sentenced him to 292 m onthsin prison,thebottom ofthe gtzidelinerange. Rosado iscurrently in custody attheUnited StatesPenitentiary in Lee Cotmty,Virginia. Hisprojected release date is July 15,2024.Seehlps://- .bop.gov/inmateloc/(searchBOPRegisterNumber23086-018). Rosario appealed thejudgment,arguingthatllisenhanced sentencewassomuch greater than the actualoffensesentencethatthedistrictcourtshould have applied a clearand convincing evidence standard,instead of a preponderance ofthe evidence standard. The Eleventh Circuit CourtofAppealsaffirmedthejudgment.United Statesv.Rosmio,181F.3d 108(11thCir.1999) (tmpublished),cert.denied,528U.S.978(Nov.1,1999). Rosario fled a motion to vacate,setaside,orcorrecthissentence pursuantto 28 U.S.C. j2255intheUnited StatesDistrictCourtforMiddleDistrictofFlorida.Thecourtdismissedllis m otion on December 8, 2000, as tim e barred. Rosario v. Urlited States, N o. 6:00cv1533cvORI-22C (M .D.F1.2000),ac d,31F.App'x 938(11thCir.2002). W hileRosariowasconfinedatafederalprisoninSouthCarolina,hefiledaj2241petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Rosmio v. F.C.I. Belmettsville,No.9:16CV00033 (D.S.C.).HùarguedthattheFloridadistrictcourtimproperly enhancedhissentencef' rom 24 monthsto 24 years,when hewas,in fact,actually innocentofthe factsnecessary to supportthatenhancementin lightofBtlrrage,134 S.Ct.at892 (holdingthat defendantcnnnothavesentenceenhancedtmder21U.S.C.j841(b)(1)(C)wheretheuseofadrug hedistributedwasnottûbut-for''causeofthedeath orinjury).TheSouth Carolinadistrictcourt dismissed thepetitionupon finding thattheFourth Circuithad not,atthattim e,held thatafederal defendantcoulduseaj2241petitiontochallengethevalidityofllissentenceasimposed.Rosario v.F.C.I.Bennettsville,No.9:16CV00033,2016W L 4951163,*3(D.S.C.Aug.10,2016). Inthepresentpetitionunderj2241,Rosario seeksreliefunderW heeler,886F.3d at423, in which theFourth Circuitrecognized lim itedcircum stanceswhereafederaldefendantm ay bring aj2241claim challenginghissentenceasimposed.Rosariocontendsthatlaisenhancedsentence isunconstitutionalbecause he tEisactually innocentofthe overdose/body injury enhancement sentencein lightof'Burrace.M em .Supp.Pet.3,ECF No.1-1.Therespondenthasfledam otion todism iss,and Rosario hasresponded,m aldngthem atterripefordisposition. 1l. A prisonergenerallymustfileamotion tmderj2255tocollaterally attackthelegalityof hisdetentionunderafederalconvictionorsentence.28U.S.C.j225544, .Davisv.UnitedStates, 417U.S.333,343(1974).A districtcotlrtcnnnotentertain apetitionforawritofhabeascorpus 4 underj2241petition challengingafederalcourtjudgmentunlessamotionpursuantto28U.S.C. j2255isGlinadequateorineffectiveto testthelegality of(thatinmate's)detention.'' 28U.S.C. j2255($ (Etthesavingsclause'');United Statesv.Wheeler,886 F.3d 415,423 (4th Cir.2018). Glll-jheremedy afforded by j 2255 isnotrenderedinadequateorineffectivemerely because an individualhas been unable to obtain relief under that provision,or because an individualis procedurallyban'ed from filingaj2255 motion.''In reVial,115F.3d 1192,1194n.5(4th Cir. 1997).2 The United StatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourth Circuithasconcluded thatj2255 is inadequateand ineffediveto testthelegality ofa sentence when: (1)atthe time ofsentencing,settled 1aw ofthiscircuitorthe Supreme Court established the legality ofthe sentence;(2)subsequentto the prisoner's direct appealandfirstj2255motion,theaforementionedsettledsubstantive1aw changed and wasdeemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3)theprisoneris unabletomeetthegatekeepingprovisionsofj2255(1$(2)forsecondorsuccessive motions;and (4)duetothisretroactivechange,thesentencenow presentsanerror sufticiently graveto bedeem ed afundamentaldefect. W heeler,886 F.3d at429.In evaluatingthesubstantivelaw in asavingsclauseanalysis,thecourt mustEçlook to the substnntive 1aw ofthe circuit where a defendant was convicted.'' Hnhn v. M oseley,931F.3d 295,300-01(4th Cir.2019)(applyinganalysisin In reJones,226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000)regarding j2241challengeto thelegality ofconviction). TheFlorida district courtwhere Rosario was convicted is within the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C.j41. 2 The courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,and/or citationshere and throughoutthis memorandllm opinion,tmlessotherwisenoted. Accordingly,whilethecourtmustapply theprocedtlralstandard in W heeler,3itmustdo so using EleventhCircuitsubstantivelaw.J-dus Rosario hasshown underthe second W heelerfactor,thatafterhis conviction,the settled substantive 1aw related to thatconviction changed when theSupreme Courtdecided Burrage. In Burrage,the Cotu'theldthatto apply thestatutory sentenceerlhancementunderj841(b)(1)(C), the governmentmustmeeta Gtbutfor''causation test,by proving thatEGbutfor''the drug thatthe defendantdistributed,theoverdosevictim w ouldnothavedied orsufferedbodily harm .571U .S. at211-17.TheCourtalsoheldthattllbjecausetheGdeathresults'enhancementginj841(b)(1)(C)) increased the mizlimum and m aximum sentencesto which Burragewasexposed,itisan elem ent thatmustbesubmittedtothejtzryandfoundbeyondareasonabledoubt.''J. Z at210. Rosario's j2241petition fails,however,becausehecarmotshow asrequired underthe second W heelerfactorthatthe changesm oughtby the Burrage decision are tideem ed to apply retroactively on collateralreviem '' W heeler,886 F.3d at429. On the contrary,the Eleventh Circuitand othercourtswithin thatcircuithaveheld thatBurragedoesnotapply retroactively on collateralreview. Herrerav.W ardensFCC Coleman,596 F.App'x 859,861(11th Cir.2015); UnitedStatesv.Bourlier,No.3:IOCR3O/M CW EM T,2014W L 6750674,at*2(N.D.Fla.Dec.1, 2014)(citingothercases);Alvarezv.Hastinzs,No.CV214-070,2014 W L 4385703,at*1(S.D. Ga.Sept.s,2014)(citing Eleventh Circuit'sdecision denyingpetitioner'sapplicationforleaveto file second orsuccessive 2255 motion based on Burrage,im plicitin which istheconclusion that Burrageisnotretroactivelyapplicable).TheFourthCircuithasalsodeclinedtoholdthatBurrage 3 Thecourtnotesthatthe Eleventh Circuithasexpressly held thatçtachange in caselaw doesnotmake a motion tovacateaprisoner'ssentence&inadequateorineffectivetotestthelegality ofhisdetention.'''M ccarthan v. DirectorofGoodwillIndustries-suncoast.Inc.,851F.3d 1076,1085-86(11thCir.2017)(0 banc)(citing28U.S.C. 52255(e)).Thus,Rosario'sBurraceclaim underj2241wouldbesoundlyrejectedinacourtwithinthatcircuit. isretroactively applicabletocaseson collateralreview .See,e.c.,Atkinsv.O'Brien,148F.Supp. 3d 547,552(N.D.W .Va.2015)(decliningtoapplyBuaageretroactivelyandcitingothercases), afpd.647F.App'x254 (4th Cir.2016)(affirming Gtforthereasonsstated bythedistrictcoulf'l. Based on this precedent,the courtconcludesthatRosado has notsatisfied the second W heeler factor. M oreover,tlBurraqehasnotbeen held to apply to the Sentencing Guidelines.'' Yotmg v. Antonelli,No.CV OTI8-IOIO-CM C-PJG,2019W L 4044113,at*2 (D.S.C.Jan.23,2019),report and recommendation adopted,No.CV 0:18-1010-CM C,2019 W L 3162398 (D.S.C.July 16, 2019). SinceBurrage,many courtshavereachedtheconclusionthatitsholding appliesonlyto thestatutory death enhancementfound in21U.S.C.j841andnottothecorollaryenhancements fotmd in the Sentencing Guidelines. See,e.g.,id.(citing Perez-colon v.O'Brien,CivilAction No.1:14CV119,2016W L 7168186,at*6(N.D.W .Va.Dec.8,2016)(holdingthatBttrrageEçdoes notapply ...where the districtcourtapplied a sentencingenhancement,nota fmdingtmderj 841(b)(1)(C)'');Powellv.UnitedSites,CivilNo.3:09CV2141(EBB),2014 W L 5092762,at*1 (D.Conn.Oct.10,2014)(ispowell'srelianceon Burraceismisplaced formany reasons,notthe leastof which is thatthe m urder cross-reference guideline is only a sentencing factor,not an elem entoftheoffense ofconviction and,assuch,isnotaffected in any w ay by Burraae,and the ruleitnnnounced doesnotrenderhim actually innocentofthesentenceenhmzcement'). Thus, Rosario'srelianceonBurragetochallengetheapplicationofthebodilyinjuryguidelineinlliscase ism isplaced. Forthe reasonsstated,the courtconcludesthatRosario cannotm eetthe W heelerfactors required to proceed under j2241 and the savings clause to have his sentence revisited. Accordingly,the courtwillgrantthe m otion to dism iss and dism iss Rosario's petition without prejudice for lack ofjmisdiction. W heeler,886 F.3d at 424-25 (holding that j2255/) is judsdictional).Anappropriateorderwillenterthisday. TheClerk isdirectedto send copiesofthism em orandllm opinion andaccompanyingorder topetitionerand to counselofrecordfortherespondent. 11* day orseptem ber,2019. sxersR: This ' SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 8
]]>
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.
