United States District Court, E.D. Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2241
E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Ingram, a federal inmate proceeding pro se,
submitted this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(hereinafter, "§ 2241 Petition, " ECF No. 1.)
In his § 2241 Petition, Ingram asserts that, in light of
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his
enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines as a career offender is
unconstitutional. However, as explained below, Ingram's
§ 2241 Petition will be dismissed for lack of
January 4, 2006, Ingram pled guilty to one count of
distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841. See United States v. Ingram, No. 3:05CR361
(E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2006). On April 7, 2006, Ingram was
sentenced to 169 months imprisonment. Id. at ECF No.
25 (E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2006). On appeal, Ingram's counsel
submitted an Anders brief "stating that there
[were] no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to accurately
determine and advise Ingram regarding the sentencing
consequences of his guilty plea." United States v.
Ingram, 213 F.App'x 229, 229 (4th Cir. 2007). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed Ingram's conviction and sentence, finding that
Ingram's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was
not cognizable on direct review. Id. at 230.
March 30, 2009, this Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Motion (hereinafter, "§ 2255 Motion") filed by
Ingram. See Ingram, No. 3:05CR361, ECF No. 51 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 30, 2009). Ingram appealed, and the Fourth Circuit
dismissed his appeal pursuant to Local Rule 45. Id.
at ECF No. 53 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2009).
April 15, 2010, Ingram filed a motion seeking a reduction of
his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (hereinafter,
"§ 3582 Motion"). Id. at ECF No. 56
(E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2010). The Court denied his § 3582
Motion on December 21, 2010. Id. at ECF No. 63 (E.D.
Va. Dec. 21, 2010). On August 21, 2010, the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of this Court. United States v.
Ingram, 475 F.App'x 928 (4th Cir. 2012).
24, 2016, the Court received an Order from the Fourth Circuit
authorizing Ingram to file a second or successive § 2255
Motion in the District Court. See Ingram No.
3:05CR361, ECF No. 85 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2016). By Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered June 30, 2017, the Court denied the
§ 2255 Motion. Id. at Nos. 93, 94 (E.D.Va. June
30, 2017). Ingram's current § 2241 Petition is his
latest attempt to challenge his conviction and sentence.
Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Compared to Petitions
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "provides the
primary means of collateral attack" on the imposition of
a federal conviction and sentence, and such motion must be
filed with the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusujf,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000)(quoting Cox v. Warden,
Fed. Del. Or., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). A
federal inmate may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
unless he demonstrates that the remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e). "For example, attacks on the
execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241
petition." In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5
(4th Cir. 1997) (citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d
164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); Hanahan v. Luther, 693
F.2d 629, 632 n.l (7th Cir. 1982)). Nevertheless, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has emphasized
that "the remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered
inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has
been unable to obtain relief under that provision or because
an individual is procedurally barred from filing a §
2255 motion." In re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5
Fourth Circuit has stressed that an inmate may proceed under
§ 2241 to challenge his conviction "in only very
limited circumstances." United States v. Poole,
531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The "controlling
test, " id., in the Fourth Circuit is as
[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the
legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction,
settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established
the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the
prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion,
the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which
the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be
criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the
gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is
not one of constitutional law.
re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis
added). The Fourth Circuit formulated this test to provide a
remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a
situation in which an individual is incarcerated for
conduct that is not criminal but, through no fault of
his [or her] own, [he or she] has no source of redress."
Id. at 333 n.3 (emphasis added).
Analysis of Ingrain's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
§ 2241 Petition will be dismissed because Ingram cannot
show that his § 2255 Motion was "inadequate or