Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mumford v. Warden Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

March 14, 2019

Terry Lamont Mumford, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Jacquelyn D. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

         Terry 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner's Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal

          On 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”).[1] 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 guideline range.

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).

         Petitioner's § 2255 Motion

         On 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.

         Petitioner's Present Action

         Petitioner 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.[2] 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 sentence. [Id.]

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Under 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.

         Furthermore, 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).

         DISCUSSION

         Savings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.