United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS
The
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Court Judge James M. Moody, Jr. 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
(14) 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 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 hearing
for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the
District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered
at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at
the hearing before the District Judge 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 hearing before the District Judge.
From
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either
before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
Mail
your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
72201-3325
DISPOSITION
This
matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge on the petition of federal prisoner Christopher Scott
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. (Docket Entry #2) For the reasons that follow, the
undersigned recommends that the petition be summarily
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Procedural
History
Scott's
federal sentence derives from a 1992 conviction out of the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
where he was found guilty of conspiring to possess with the
intent to distribute cocaine, engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise, and money laundering; he received a life
sentence. (DE #1, Petition; DE #10-1, Exhibit 1) The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and
sentence on July 11, 1994. United States v. Johnson,
28 F.3d 1487 (8th Cir. 1994). The United States Supreme Court
denied the petition for writ of certiorari on January 9,
1995. Johnson v. United States, 513 U.S. 1098
(1995).
On
April 23, 1997, Scott filed a 2255 motion in the sentencing
court; the motion was denied on January 20, 1998. Thereafter,
on March 26, 1998, the court declined to issue a certificate
of appealability, and on February 10, 1999, the Eighth
Circuit granted the defendant a certificate of appealability
limited to certain issues. It ultimately affirmed the
judgment of the sentencing court denying post-conviction
relief, concluding that the United States Supreme Court Case,
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813
(1999)[1], had no effect on the outcome of
Scott's case because, even assuming trial counsel should
have requested a specific unanimity instruction to support
the continuing criminal enterprise count, Scott had not
established ...