Ham v. Breckon, No. 7:2018cv00649 - Document 10 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 4/29/2019. (ck) (Main Document 10 replaced on 4/29/2019) (ck). Modified on 4/29/2019 to update pdf with correct file stamp (ck).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ham v. Breckon Doc. 10 CLERK' S OFFICE 0. S.DISX X URT AT RIM NOKE,VA FILED 4/29/2019 AF2 26 2919 IN TIIE UM TED STATESDIW RICT COURT JULK C.DUDLEM C RK FO R THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGIM A QY' .s/ C. Kemp ROANOKE DW ISION JOH N FORREST H AM ,JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner V. NPARDEN M .BRECK ON, R espondent :2 . l . CivilAction No.7:18CV00649 M EM OR ANDUM OPINION By: H on.G len E.C onrad SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge PetitionerJolm ForrestHnm ,Jr.,afederalinm ateproceedingpro K ,submitted thisaction . asapetition forawritofhabeascorpus,plzrsuantto28U.S.C.j2241.Ham citesUnited States v.Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.2018) and other cases,contending that he must be resentenced withoutthe application ofthe Armed CareerCriminalAct(GW CCA''),18 U.S.C. j924(e). In response to thepetition,the United Stateshassllmmarily conceded thatHnm is entitled to sentencing reliefunder j2241. Specifically,the Urlited Statesassertsthattmder United Statesv.McLeod,808 F.3d 972 (4th Cir.2015),United Statesv.Hemingway,734 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.2013),andM athisv.United States,136 U.S.2243 (2016),Ham no longermeets the reqe em ents of the ACCA , and his cuaent sentence exceeds the otherwise applicable statutory maximllm . Afterconsideration oftheparties'submissions and courtrecords,thecourt willrequiretheUnitedStatestoshow causewhythiscotlrthasjutisdictionto granttherequested sentencingrelieftmderj2241. Hnm is c= ently confined atthe United States Penitentiary Lee County,located in this . ; district.Pursuanttoajudgmententeredon September10,2010,inCziminalActionNo.6:10-cr00046-TM C by the Uriited SGtesDistrict Courtfor District of South Carolina,Hnm stands convicted ofpossession ofaflrearrn byaconvictedfelon,inviolationof18U.S.C.jj922(g)(1), Dockets.Justia.com 924(a)(2),and 924/)tcountOne);carjacking,in violation of18U.S.C.j2119(1)tcotmtTwo); and possession of a fireann during and in relation to a crime of violence,in violation of 18 U.S.C.5 924(c)(1)(CountThree). TheCourtsentenced Hnm to atotalterm of316monthsof imprisonment:Based on priorconvictions,Ham 'ssentencewasenhanced pursuanttotheACCA andthecareeroffenderprovisionoftheUnitedStatessentencing guidelines.Thejudgmentwas affrmed on appeal. United States v. Hnm,438 F.App'x 183 (4th Cir.July 12,2011) (unpublished). ln July 2012,Hnm sled a m otion to vacate,setaside orcorrectthe sentence tmder 28 U.S.C.j2255. Among otherthings,Ham argued lmsuccessfully thathisdefense cotmselwas ineffective for failing to argue that two ofllis prior convictions- south Carolina third-degree burglàry and assaultand battery ofhigh andaggravatednature(&CABHAN'')---did notqualifyas prerequisitesforsentence enhancementstmderthe ACCA orthe careeroffenderguideline. See United Statesv.Hnm,Cr.No.6:10-46-TM C,2013 W L 4048988 (D.S.C.Aug.9,2013). Ham didnotappealthedenialofthisj2255action. In Jlme 2017,Hnm sled a petition for a writof habeas corpus pursuantto 28 U.S.C. j2241in thiscourt,claimingthatllisfederalcriminalsentencewastmlawfully enhanced,based on his priorburglary and ABHAN convictions. This courtdenied j2241 relieftmderIn re Jones,226F.3d328,332 (4th Cir.2000),constnledHnm'ssubmission asa j2255motion,and transferred it to the district cotlrt in South Carolina. See Hnm v. United States, No. 7:17CV00295,2017W L 2799893 (W .D.Va.Jtme27,2017).InM amh2018,theSouthCarolina courtdismisseé Hnm 'sj2255motion assuccessive,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j2255(19. Cr.No. 6:10-cr-00046-TM C,ECF No.114-15.Hnm did notappeal. 2 Three m onths later, in June 2018,Ham filed a motion to alter or nmend the Court's M arch 2018 order.Ham contended thatthe South Carolina courtshould construehissubm ission asa j2241petition andtransferitbackto theW estern DistrictofVirginiaforconsideration of hisunlawft zlsentence claim undertherecentcourtofappealsdecision in W heeler,886 F.3d 415. W hilethismotionwaspending,in December2018,Hnm filedhiscurrentj2241petitioninthis court,raisingclaim sunderW heeler. On January 7,2019,in the South Carolinacase,United StatesDistrictJudgeTim othy M . Cain deniedHnm 'sm otionto alterornm end,findinghisargumentstmderW heelerto be without m erl *t. . . . . Hnm contendsthatheshould be allowed to challengehissentencein a j 2241petition pursuantto the savingsclause ofj 2255/)and the holding in W heeler. In W heeler, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that j2255/)providesûlan avenueforprisonerstotestthelegality oftheirsentences ptlrsuantto j 22415'ifapetitionercan demonstratethatj2255 isinadequateor . ineffectiveto testthe legality ofa sentence. W heeler,886 F.3d at428. Section ' 2255isdeemedinadequateorineffectivewhen apetitionerestablishesthat:1)llis sentencewaslegaltmdersettledlaw atthetimeofsentencing;2)afterpetitioner's directappealandfirstmotionunderj2255,thesubstantivelaw changed,andthe new law wasmaderetroactiveoncollateralreview;3)petitionerisunabletomeet therequirementsofj2255(1$(2)to fileasuccessivemotiontmderj2255;and4) the sentence imposed presentsa fundam entaldefectdueto the change in the law . J.I . L at429. The courtfinds thatHam cnnnotm eetthe second prong ofW heeler.ln seeldng habeas relief, Ham relies, in part, on the following cases:M athis v. . United States,136 S.Ct.2243,2257 (2016),United Statesv.McLeod,808F.3d 972 (4thCir.2015),andUnitedStatesv.Hemingway,734F.3d 323,331(4th Cir. 2013). Theholdingsin M athis,M cLeod,and Heminawav werenotretroactive. See,e.2.,M athis,136 S.Ct.at2257(çtourprecedentsmakethisastraightfom ard case. Formorethan 25 years,w ehave repeatedly made clearthatapplication of ' ACCA involves,and involvesonly,comparing elements.');W alkerv.Kassell, 726 F.App'x 191,192 (4th Cir.2018)(perctlriam)(Gç(W qe affiirm because ... M athis...has not been held retroactively applicable on collateral review ,so gpetitioner)may notproceed tmderj2241.15);W ashington v.M oseley,No.5:181292-HM H,2018W L 5095148,*3(D.S.C.Oct.19,2018)(petitioneristmableto satisfy the second prong ofthe W heelertestbecauseM cLeod hasnotbeen found by any courtto apply retroactively to collateralchallenges);Ladson v.United 'States,No.4:09-cr-00226-TLW ,2015W L 3604220,at*2 (D.S.C. 'June5,2015) (holding thatHemingwav is notretroactive);M ason v.Thomas,No.0:14-cv2552-1V 11,2014 W L 7180801,at*4 (D.S.C.Dec.16,2014) (same). Because ' Ham 's habeas petition does not rely on a retroactively applicable change in substKtive1aw subsequenttohisdirectappealandfrstj2255motidn,hecnnnot usethese casesto satisfytherequirem entsofW heeler. Order2-3,Ham,CriminalAction No.6:10-cr-00046-TM C,ECFNo.131(record citesomitted). Hnm 'sappealofJudgeCain'sruling iscurrently pending in theFourth Circuit,No.19-6307. 1I. A federal prisoner bringing a claim for relief from an allegedly illegal sentence must normally do so in a j2255 motion in the sentencing court. Section 2255/)providesthata j2241 habeas petition raising sùch a claim Gûshallnot be entertained ifit appears thatthe applicanthasfailed to apply forrelief,by m otion,to the courtwhich sentenced Mm ,orthatsuch courthas denied him relief,llnless italso appearsthatthe rem edy by m otion isinadequate or ineffectiveto testthelegalityofhisdetention.'' 28U.S.C.j2255($ (emphasisadded). M any circuitcourtsofappeals,includingtheFourthCircuit,haveheldthatthelastphrasein j2255(e), lcnown asthesavingsclause,isjurisdictional. W hçeler,886 F.3dat424-25 (citing W illinmsv. W arden,713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir.2013)). In otherwords,the savingsclausetçcommandsthe districtcourtnotto entertain a j2241 petition thatraisesa claim ordinarily cognizablein the petitioner'sfirstj2255 motion exceptin ...exceptionalcircumstancelsj.'' 1d.at425 (quoting W illinms,713F.3dat1338(alterationsandintemalquotationmarksomittedl). TheUnited Stateshasnotdemonstrated thatHnm 'sclaim fallswithin thenan'ow scope of j22554e)asrequired to allow thiscourtto addressitin tllisj2241action. M oreover,Judge CainV snlledthatHam doesnotqualifytmderthefour-partstandardinW heelertohavehis claim addressedunderj2241.UnlessthesavingsclauseappliestoHnm'sclaim,thiscourthas no çfPowertoact''li Accordingly,thecourtwillrequiretheUnited Statesto show causewhy 4 thiscourtshould notdismissHnm'scuzrentj2241petition forlack ofjurisdictionforthesnme reasonsoutlined in Judge Cain'sorderin M arch 2018. An appropriateorderwillenterthisday. The court will send the parties a copy of this m emorandllm opinion and the accompanying order. ENTER:Tllis* dayofApril, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 5
]]>
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.
