United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the court on pro se petitioner
Marshall Dewayne Williams's request for habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 14, 2018,
Respondent, the Warden of the United States Penitentiary in
Lee County, Virginia, filed a motion to dismiss as second or
successive, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, to
which Williams responded on September 18, 2018. For the
reasons set forth below, the court grants Respondent's
motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary judgment,
and denies Williams's request for habeas relief.
February 2, 1984, Williams was arrested by Texas state
authorities and charged with murder for an offense which
occurred on January 27, 1984. ECF Nos. 18-1 at ¶ 5 and
18-5 at 2. The offense was described as destroying a
newspaper dispenser by bomb, resulting in the death of
another, and also possession of an unregistered firearm. ECF
No. 18-4 at 1.
7, 1984, Williams was charged in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas in cause number
CR3-84-148-G with maliciously damaging and destroying by
means of an explosive bomb property being used in an activity
affecting interstate commerce and resulting in the death of
another (Count 1); possession of a firearm as defined by
registration and transfer record (Count 2); and unlawfully
making a firearm and using an explosive to commit a felony
(Count 3). ECF No. 18-1 at ¶ 6. On December 12, 1984,
Williams was sentenced to life in prison on Count 1, a
10-year sentence on Count 2, and a 10-year sentence on Count
3, all to run consecutively to one another. Id. at
¶ 7 and ECF No. 18-2. On December 13, 1984 the sentence
was amended to show that the 10-year sentences for Counts 2
and 3 were to run concurrently with one another, but
consecutively to Count 1. ECF Nos. 18-1 at ¶ 6 and 18-3.
December 14, 1984 the United States Marshals Service filed a
detainer with the Texas state authorities. ECF No. 18-1 at
¶ 9. Williams was convicted on two counts of murder in
two different Texas state courts on February 8, 1985, and
February 21, 1985 respectively, and sentenced to two 50-year
terms of incarceration, both of which were to run
concurrently with his federal sentence. Id. at
¶¶ 10, 12 and ECF No. 18-5. Williams was released
by Texas back into federal custody on February 19, 1985. ECF
Nos. 18-1 at ¶11 and 18-4.
November 13, 1985 Williams's federal sentence stemming
from the bombing was amended to impose a 99-year term of
incarceration on Count 1, and 10-year terms on Counts 2 and 3
to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to
Count 1, for a total sentence of 109 years. ECF No. 18-1 at
¶13. On August 11, 2005 Williams was released to
mandatory supervision on die state charges while still in
federal custody. ECF No. 18-5 at 1.
14, 2008 Williams was indicted in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee in cause number
2:08-cr-20161-01-D on one count of mailing threatening
communications. Id. at ¶15 and ECF No. 18-7.
Williams was found guilty of that offense and on February 27,
2009 he was sentenced to a term of 60 months, to run
consecutively to the 109-year sentence. ECF No. 18-1 at
¶ 16 and ECF No. 18-8. The judgment was amended on
November 26, 2012 to a 96-month term of imprisonment, to run
consecutively to the undischarged sentence for the bombing
and one of the state murder sentences. ECF Nos. 18-1 at
¶ 17 and ECF No. 18-9.
argues that his sentences are not being calculated correctly
and that he is entitled to release. In particular, he argues
that (1) he is entitled to aggregate his "old-law"
sentences related to the bombing and have the parole
calculation made on a total sentence of 109 years rather than
separately on the 99-year sentence and the 10-year sentences;
(2) Respondent refused to grant him the good time and
industrial good time he has earned; and . (3) His mandatory
parole date was miscalculated and he was entitled to release
on parole after serving more than 30 years.
Respondent's motion to dismiss and, alternatively, motion
for summary judgment, he argues that Williams's petition
should be dismissed as an abuse of the writ and that his
claims should be denied on the merits because his sentence is
being calculated correctly and he is not entitled to release.
Williams responds that his petition is not subject to
dismissal for abuse of the writ and that he is entitled to
the relief he seeks.
Abuse of the Writ
argues that Williams's habeas application should be
dismissed based on the principle of "abuse of the
writ." The habeas statute addressing second or
successive petitions provides the following:
No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain
an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into
the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court
of the United States if it appears that the legality of such
detention has been determined by a judge or court of the
United States on a ...