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.

Hollywood v. Rivera

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division

February 10, 2015

CHARLES LAZONE HOLLYWOOD Reg #XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
C. V. RIVERA, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, Forrest City, Arkansas, Respondent.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") will be sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. Mr. Hollywood - or any party - may file written objections to this Recommendation.

Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong and describe the evidence that supports that belief.

Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. The Clerk of the Court will furnish a copy of your objections to the opposing party.

If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

Mail your objections to:

II. Background

Petitioner Charles Lazone Hollywood pleaded guilty to distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base. (Docket entry #1 at p. 1) The Court sentenced Mr. Hollywood to 144 months' imprisonment. (#8-1 at p. 2)

After Mr. Hollywood was sentenced, the guideline sentencing range was lowered, and the change was made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission. Mr. Hollywood filed a motion for reduction of his sentence based upon the change, which the trial court denied. (#8-3)

Mr. Hollywood files this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his sentence enhancement as a career offender. (#1 at p. 1) He claims that he is actually innocent of being a career offender, that the enhancement was an error, and that it has caused a miscarriage of justice. (#1 at p. 2) For reasons that follow, the Court recommends DISMISSAL of the petition without prejudice.

III. Jurisdiction

Generally, a federal inmate may challenge his conviction or sentence only with the sentencing court through a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010)(citing Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1147, 125 S.Ct. 2984 (2005)). A claim that a sentence exceeded the maximum allowed under law is properly brought under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, on the other hand, attacks the execution of a sentence, or the manner in which the sentence is being carried out. That claim lies within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court presiding in the judicial district where the prisoner ...


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.