Hager v. Warden, No. 7:2019cv00226 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/20/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
rLERKS OFFICEu.s.(IIST,COUR-! AT ROANQKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO IJRT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA ROANOKE DIW SION KEITH H AGER , Petitioner, W ARDEN, R espondent. ' ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JUN 2 1 2219 JULK ..DUDL ,C RK BY; z''-- . P W CL K CASE NO.7:19CV00226 M EM ORANDUM OPINION By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDistrictJudge Keith Hager,afederalinm ate proceeding pro K ,hasfiled a Petition fora W ritofHabeas . Copusptlrsuantto 28U.S.C.j 2241,asking forrelease from detention undera void criminal judgment.Afterreview oftherecord,thecourtwillsllmmarilydismissthepetition. Hagerpleaded guilty in theUnited StatesDistrictCourtforthe Northern Districtoflowa to achargeofconspiring to distribute 100 grnm sormore ofheroin within 1,000 feetofa school. The Courtsentenced Hagerto thestatutory m axim um sentence of960 m onthsin prison,land the judgmentwasafsrmed on appeal.SeeUnited Statesv.Hager,609F.App'x 355(8th Cir.April 24,2015),cert.denied,136 S.Ct.2031(2016).Hager'smotiontovacate,setasideorcorrectthe sentencetmder28U.S.C.j2255wasdeniedin2017.Pet.18,ECFNo.1. Hager v. Warden Doc. 4 1 Atthesentencinghearing, theCourtfoundthatHagerhad participated in am anagerialorleadership role Ttina cpnspiracy to distributedrugs,primarily cocaineandheroin,from 2004 tmtil2013,spalmingbetween Iowaand Illinois.'' Hager,609 F.App'x at356-7. The Courtalso found that(dl-lagerwasinvolved with the distribution of 78,613.975kilogramsofmarijuana-equivalentdrugsy''that$Eatleastoneunderageindividualwasinvolvedwiththe distribution,''thatHagerobstructedjusticethreetimesbymakingfalseclaimstotheCourtandtheprobationoffker andtellingwimessestotestify untruthfully,andthat&tl' lagerhadnotestablishedthatheacceptedresponsibility forhis actions.'' 1d. The960-month sentencewaswithin theguidelinerange,and the Courtfound ittobean appropriate sentence,becauseHagerEshasalonghistoly ofdrug dealing,hasgangaffiliation,hasnothadhonestemployment,and hald)notbeenhonestwiththedistrictcourtorprobation.Consequently,thedistrictcotu' tbelievedHagerisatahigh risk torecidivate.'' Id.at358. Dockets.Justia.com ! Liberally constnled,Hager'ssl-pagej2241petitionzcontendsthathisdetention by the warden ofthe United States Penitentiary in Lee County,Virginia (ICUSP Lee'')violates due process,becauseHager'sconviction and sentencewerevoidwhen imposed.Hagerdeniesthathis petition attacksthelegality ofthecriminaljudgmentagainsthim orthatheseeksto havethat judgnient setaside. He allegedly seeks a Glcivilremedy''to obtain release from allegedly unconstimtionaldetention. Id.at18. HageroffersseverallegalSçgrounds''toprovethatthejudgmentisallegedlyGûvoidbecause itiscontrary to theConstitution.'' Id.at17.Hearguesthattheindictm entwastmconstiotionally vaguebecause itdid notstate,nordid thegrandjury charge,the actualdnlg nmountused to calculatehislengthy sentence.He contendsthatbecausehepleaded guilty believinghissentence would be 80 m onthsin prison,hisplea wasnotknowing and valid. He complainsthatthenowadvisory federalsentencing guidelineswould haveGtcttred thevagueindictment''iftheyhad been m andàtory instead,as Congress intended. Id.at27. Hager contends that the Suprem e Court violated G'Separation ofPowers''by ruling thatthe m andatory aspectofthe guidelineshad to be changed.Id.at28.Hecomplainsthatusing relevantconductto increasehissentencechanged his crim eofconviction.Id.at24.Hagerasserts:ii-f' hecourthadauthoritytopunishfortheagreem ent todistributethe loo-grnmesgsicjwithintheprotectedarea.EverythingelseviolatedM r.Hager's due pyocessoflam '' Id.at37. Hager arguesthatany conspiracy in which he pM icipated was completewhen heagreedto it,andthus,itfelloutsidethescopeoftheControlled SubstancesAct, becauseM sactivity w ithin 1,000 feetofa schooldid notaffectinterstate com m erce.A ccordingly, 2 WhileHagerdeclaresatonepointthatheisrelyingon SûtheGreatW ritof1789,,'hefiled hispetitionon a form designedforhabeasclaimsunderj2241andarguesthatheisentitledtoreliefunderthatstatute.Pet.17,ECF No.1. SeeCastrov.United States,540U.S.375,382 (2003)(citAtionsomitted)(noting thatafederalcourtmay Gligzore thelegallabelthata pro se litigantattachesto a motion and recharacterize themotion in orderto place it withinadifferentlegalcategory.''). 2 he insists,he pleaded guilty to a Glnon-çxistentoffense,''making his plea tand the criminal judgment)çsvoid.''Id.at42-43.Inthealtem ative,heassertsthatthestatuteofconviction itself, 21U.S.C.j860,istmconstitutional,becauseprohibiting drugtrafûcking in onelocal,protected area isnotGt N ecessary and Properforthe Regulation ofCom merce,''citing Article 1,section 8, Clause 18 oftheConstitution. 1d.at48. II. A prisonermayfleamotionunderj2255tocollaterallyattackthelegalityofhisdetention tmderaconvictionorsentence. 28U.S.C.j2255($;Davisv.United States,417 U.S.333,343 (1974).A districtcourt'cnnnotentertainapetitionforam'itofhabeascorpusunderj2241petition challengingthevalidityofan inmate'sdetentiontmderafederalcourtjudgmenttmlessamotion pursuantto 28U.S.C.j2255is'Ginadequateorineffectiveto testthe legality of(thatinmate'sl detenyion.''28U.S.C.j2255/)(Glthesavingsclause');United Statesv.R eeler,886F.3d415, 423(4thCir.2018).TheUzlitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourth Circuithasconcluded thatj2255isinadequateandineffectiveto testthelegalityofaconviction when: (1) atthe time ofconviction settled 1aw ofthis circuitorthe Supreme Court established thelegality ofthe conviction;(2)subsequentto thepdsoner'sdirect appealand firstj2255motion,thesubstantive1aw changedsuchthattheconduct ofwllich the prisonerwasconvicted is deemed notto be cdminal;and (3)the prisonercnnnotsatisfythegatekeepingprovisiönsofj2255becausethenew rule isnotoneofconstitutionallaw. InreJones,226F.3d328,333-34(4th Cir.2000).3 Hagercannotsatisfy thisstandard,becausehefailsto identify any intervening change in substN tive 1aw that decrim inalized the acts for w hich he w as convicted. W ithout question, 3 HagerassertsthattheIn re Jonesruling Gdcannotberelied on''and asksthecourtto considerhisclaims underadecisionbytheEleventhCircuitCourtofAppealsandUnitedStatesv.Surratt,794F.3d240(4thCir.2015). 'I' he Surrattdecision offersHagerno basisforrelietlbecause itwas4' nullified''whentheFourth Circuitgranted rehearirlg #-q banc in December2015,and thecase itselfwasdismissed asmootafterthe defendant'ssentencewas commutedbypresidentialorder.Vassellv.O'Brien,No.5:17CV9,2018WL 3148239,at*10(N.D. W .Va.Jan.31, 2018). Moreover,thiscourt,located withintheFourth Circuit'sjmisdiction,cannotchoosetofollow nzlingsby anothercom' tofappealsincontradiction oftheFourth Circuit'sclearly established precedentin InreJones. 3 conspiracy to distlibute controlled substances within 1,000 feetofa schoolisstilla violation of feder4lcriminallaw. Hager's arguments in his j2241petition- attempting to invalidate the criminaljudgmentconvictingandsentencinghim- fallsquarelywithinthecategoryofclaimsthat hecouldhaveraisedondirectappealorinhisfirstj2255motion.Thefactthatsuchclaimswould now be barred as successive oruntimely filed ifraised in a second j 2255 motion does not authorizeHagerto raisethem instead in a j2241petition through the narrow window ofthe savingsclauseofj2255($.ln reVial,115F.3d 1192,1194n.5(4th Cir.1997)(Gû(T)heremedy affordedbyj2255isnotrenderedinadequateorineffectivemerelybecauseanindividualhasbeen tmableto obtain relieftm derthatprovision,orbecausean individualisprocedurally ban' ed from filingaj2255motion,'')(citationsomitted). Anevenmorestringentstandardappliestoj2241challengestothelegalityofaninmate's sentence asimposed.To bring such claim s,theprisonerm ustshow that: (1)atthetime ofsentencing,settled 1aw ofthis circuitorthe Supreme Court established the legality ofthe sentence;(2) subsequentto the prisoner's direct appealandfrstj2255motion,theaforementionedsettledsubstantivelaw changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3)the prisoneris unabletomeetthegatekeepingprovisionsofj2255(1$(2)forsecondorsuccessive motions;and(4)duetothisretroactivechange,thesentencenow presentsan error sufficiently graveto bedeemed a f' undam entaldefect. W heeler,886 F.3d at 429. Hager fails to show that his sentence now constitutes çtan en'or sufficiently graveto bedeemed afhndnmentaldefect''in lightofparticularchangesin substantive 1aw thatoccurredafterhisinitialj2255motion andhavealsobeenfotmdtoapplyretroactivelyin a collateralproceeding. Id. lnconclusion,Hagercoucheshisgrotmdsforrelieftmderj2241intermsthatthewarden's execution ofhis sentence violates the Constitution or law s ortreaties of the United States. H is claim s,however,do notchallengethecalculation ofhisterm ofconfinementorany otherfacetof 4 th8 execution ofthecriminaljudgment. On the contrary,allofHager'sclaims- an allegedly involpntary guilty plea,alleged constitutionalorhistoric invalidity ofthe statutesand guidelines underwhich hewasconvicted and sentenced,orvariouscourterrorsattrialand sentencing--could beraisedinaj2255 motionand,thus,cannotfallwithin the savingsclauseof j22554e)tmder ln reJonesorW heeler.Therefore,the courtconcludesthatitiswithoutjtlrisdictionto address Hager'sclaims attacking eitherhis conviction or his sentence tmder j2241. The courtwill summmily dismisshispetitionwithoutprejudice.4 Anappropriateorderwillenterthisday. TheClerk isdirectedto send copiesofthism em orandum opinion andaccompanyingorder to petitioner. EXTER:This Jf dayofJune, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 4 ThecourtdeclinestoconstrueHager'ssubmissionasaj2255motionandtransferittotheUnited States DistrictCourtforthe Northern Districtoflowa asthe sentencing court,because such a motion would sm ely be dismissedassuccessive.28U.S.C.j2255(1$. 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.
