Opinion
Civil Action No. 7:16cv00058
03-08-2016
LEONARD EUGENE KING, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Leonard Eugene King, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lee County, Virginia, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. King alleges that his federal criminal sentence is unlawful under Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Upon review of the record, the court concludes that King's claim for relief cannot proceed under § 2241 and, therefore, the court will construe the petition as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transfer it to the sentencing court.
King was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of possessing with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). United States v. King, No. 8:14cr00028-1 (D.M.D. Dec. 16, 2014). King did not appeal and has not filed a § 2255 motion. King now petitions this court under § 2241 for habeas relief under Johnson, which held that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.
King challenges the legality of his federal sentence, and such claims must normally be raised on appeal or in a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000). Section 2241 petitions generally challenge the way a sentence is executed. In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). King, in order to bring his current challenge under § 2241, would have to meet the requirements of the § 2255 savings clause and then meet the stringent standard mandated under In re Jones to establish that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34 (finding that a challenge to a federal conviction is barred from review under § 2241 absent a showing that under a post-conviction change in the law, petitioner's offense conduct is no longer criminal).
The current petition fails to state facts on which King could satisfy the savings clause and In re Jones standards. Because Johnson had no effect on the criminality of King's offense conduct - possessing with the intent to distribute drugs and possessing a firearm as a felon - he cannot proceed with his claim under § 2241. Therefore, the court will construe King's petition as a § 2255 motion and transfer it to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Entered: March 8, 2016.
/s/
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge