United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
MICHAEL DEZAY JACKSON Reg. #XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
RIVERA, WARDEN, FORREST CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
On March 27, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Petitioner, Michael Jackson, pled guilty to one count of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. (Doc. No. 13-1 at 4.) He received a sentence of 240 months. ( Id. at 2.) Later, on May 31, 2011, Petitioner's sentence was reduced to 204 months. (Doc. No. 13-2 at 1.)
On September 18, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) In the Petition, he alleges that the enhancement of his sentence as a career offender was both illegal and unconstitutional. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Petitioner argues that (1) the government's use of the enhancement statute for simple possession conflicts with congressional intent ( Id. ); (2) he is not a career offender within the meaning of the statute and, thus, the enhancement was wrongly applied in his case ( Id. ); and (3) the 240-month prison sentence ultimately violated his due process. ( Id. at 4-5.) Respondent counters that Petitioner did not raise a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the Central District of Illinois and he cannot demonstrate the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the § 2255 remedy in the sentencing court. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Therefore, Respondent contends the Eastern District of Arkansas lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ( Id. )
The Court has reviewed the Petition, Response and supporting documentation. After careful review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because Petitioner did not properly ...