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.

Watford v. Wilson

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

June 21, 2018

KENNETH WATFORD, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

         Kenneth Watford, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition. ("§ 2241 Petition"). (ECF Nos. 6, 9-1. J[1] For the reasons set forth below, the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.[2]

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF WATFORD'S CLAIMS

         In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ("Sentencing Court"), Watford was convicted of: one- count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud; three-counts of wire fraud; one-count of attempted wire fraud; two-counts of aggravated identity theft; two-counts of aggravated identity theft while on pretrial release; one-count of access device fraud while on pretrial release; one-count of attempted access device fraud while on pretrial release; and, one-count of attempted access device fraud. See United States v. Watford, 692 Fed.Appx. 108, 109-10 (4th Cir. 2017). The Sentencing Court imposed a 135-month term of imprisonment for all counts. See id. at 112. On May 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Watford's conviction and sentence. Id.

         In his § 2241 Petition, Watford challenges his convictions by the Sentencing Court. (See ECF No. 9-1, at 2-6.) Specifically, Watford raises the following claims for relief in his § 2241 Petition:[3]

Claim One: "Failure to appear. On Nov [ember] 19, 2013, the judge ruled that I failed to appear at a Nov[ember] 15, 2013 bail revocation hearing. I submitted proof to this Court . . . that I did not fail to appear." (ECF No. 9-1, at 2.)
Claim Two: "Unauthorized transfer of jurisdiction from state court to federal court. The lawyer I had at the time allowed [my case] to be moved without my consent." (Id. at 4.)
Claim Three: "False Criminal Complaint. The Criminal Complaint had two false convictions, felonies, a false statement that linked me to a conspiracy, was determined at trial through the FBI agent['s] own testimony that she lied. ..." (Id. at 4.)
Claim Four: "Indictment based on fraud, misleading and misrepresentation of the truth. That Mr. Watford was convicted in Baltimore City Circuit Court to 10 years for selling cocaine. False. That Mr. Watford was arrested in [North Carolina] ¶ 1989 for driving without a license, and was convicted of that offense in March of 2009. False. That Mr. Watford gave a gentleman a website to print-out a fraudulent insurance policy that he used to purchase vehicles in other people ['s] names. False. Was proven by the FBI Agent['s] own testimony that she lied." (Id. at 5.)
Claim Five: "Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. It was proven in trial that I didn't provide an insurance policy or identity theft names to anyone in furtherance of a crime. It was proven at trial that the lead FBI investigator lied about Mr. Watford's involvement in a conspiracy to commit fraud." (Id. at 6.)
Claim Six: "Loss amount. There [was] no loss amount reported. There could have been no intended loss because it was proven at trial that Mr. Watford was not involved with a conspiracy to commit fraud." (Id.)
Claim Seven: "Illegal search of cellphone. The Government did not have a search warrant to search Mr. Watford's cellphone and refused to turn the cellphone over to Mr. Watford, in fear that it would prove Mr. Watford's innocence." (Id.)

         II. MOTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 COMPARED TO PETITIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241

         A 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. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Pet. Ctr., 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).[4] "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 ยง 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ...


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.