United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jacquelyn D. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
Lamont Mumford (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner in
the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and is currently
incarcerated in South Carolina at the Edgefield Federal
Correctional Institution. [Doc. 1 at 1.] Petitioner brings
this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and is
proceeding pro se. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C.,
the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review such
petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations
to the District Court. For the reasons below, the Petition is
subject to summary dismissal.
Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal
June 6, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to
Count 1 of an Indictment at case number 1:05-cr-00125-CCE,
charging him with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2113(a), and to Count 1 of an Indictment at case
number 1:05-cr-00126-CCE, also charging him with bank robbery
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a). [Doc. 1 at
1-2]; United States v. Mumford, No.
1:05-cr-00125-CCE (M.D. N.C. Jun. 6, 2005), Docs. 11; 14
(“Mumford I”); United States v.
Mumford, No. 1:05-cr-00126-CCE (M.D. N.C. Jun. 6, 2005),
Docs. 11; 14 (“Mumford
II”). On September 12, 2005, the Honorable Frank
W. Bullock, Jr., sentenced Petitioner to, among other things,
a term of 180 months' imprisonment as to Count 1 at case
number 1:05-cr-00125-CCE and a term of 180 months'
imprisonment as to Count 1 at case number 1:05-cr-00126-CCE,
with both sentences to run concurrently with each other and
consecutive to the state sentence he was serving at the time.
[Doc. 1 at 1]; Mumford I, Doc. 21; Mumford
II, Doc. 20. As noted by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals in ruling on Petitioner's direct appeal,
The district court concluded that [Petitioner] qualified for
sentencing as a career offender pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2004), and sentenced him
under an advisory sentencing regime, after considering the
applicable sentencing range and the factors under [18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)], to a sentence within the applicable
United States v. Mumford, 174 Fed.Appx. 767, 767
(4th Cir. 2006). On April 6, 2006, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence.
[Doc. 1 at 2]; Mumford, 174 Fed.Appx. at 767. The
United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition
for writ of certiorari on October 2, 2006. Mumford v.
United States, 549 U.S. 890, (2006).
§ 2255 Motion
December 31, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 in the sentencing court. [Doc. 1 at 4]; Mumford
I, Doc. 30; Mumford II, Doc. 29. Petitioner
argued, among other things, that his sentence should be
vacated under the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson
v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Mumford
I, Doc. 30; Mumford II, Doc. 29. However, the
sentencing court denied his motion on November 2, 2017.
Mumford I, Doc. 43; Mumford II, Doc. 32.
now seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
this Court, claiming that his sentence is unconstitutional
because he is no longer a career offender under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or
“Guidelines”) due to a substantive change in the
law. [Doc. 1-1 at 1. Petitioner contends that he meets the
savings clause test announced in United States v.
Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (2018). [Id.] For his
relief, Petitioner requests that the Court vacate his
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings pursuant
to the procedural provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The review has been
conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden,
Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.
1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712
F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d
1291 (4th Cir. 1978); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The Petitioner is a pro se
litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal
construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S.
319 (1972). Even under this less stringent standard, however,
the Petition is subject to summary dismissal.
this Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit
to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts; see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (2012) (a district
court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not
filed pursuant to § 2254).