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.

Hakim v. Holt

February 1, 2007

KHALIL ABDUL HAKIM, PETITIONER
v.
RONNIE HOLT, RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Muir

ORDER

(Petition Filed 11/13/06)

Petitioner, Khalil Abdul Hakim, an inmate currently confined in the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution, Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Background

On June 6, 2002, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found petitioner guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1); and one count of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). (USA v. Hakim, Criminal Action No. 2:02-cr-0131 -JP-All (E.D. Pa. 2002)(docket sheet)). On September 30, 2002, he was sentenced to a 136 month term of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, restitution in the amount of $14,698.00 and a special assessment of $400.00. Id.

On October 1, 2002, Hakim filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On October 14, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the district court. Id.

On June 14, 2004, Hakim filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. After a hearing on April 21, 2005, the trial court issued a Memorandum and Order on October 19, 2005, denying petitioner's 2255 motion. Id. On November 1, 2005, Hakim appealed the denial of his 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on December 7, 2005, he filed a motion for certificate of appealability with the Court of Appeals. Id. By Order dated March 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability, and affirmed the trial court's denial of petitioner's 2255 motion. Id. On May 1, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Id. By Order dated May 31, 2006, petitioner's motion for rehearing en banc was denied. Id.

On November 13, 2006, Hakim filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He seeks relief on the basis of the following:

1. The unlawful execution and continued operation of a federal prison sentence imposed in violation of the United States Constitution plainly renders the term of confinement patently illegal.

2. The United States Supreme Court did in fact exceed its lawful constitutional authority under the separation of powers doctrine in accordance with Articles I, II, and III of the United States Constitution by impermissibly encroaching the powers of the legislative branch and improperly severing an excising §§ 3553(a) and 3742(e) from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and thereby in effect making the United States [Federal] Sentencing Guidelines advisory in an effort to make the guidelines compliant and compatible with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

3. The term of supervised release imposed on petitioner under the circumstances presented by the instant case is not authorized by law or sanctioned by the United States Constitution as applied.

4. Petitioner is in fact unlawfully detained where the sentencing court lacked sufficient jurisdiction to imposed the kinds of restraints on his liberty that it did in the first instance.

Petitioner claims that both his sentence enhancements and his supervised release are in conflict with the Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Blakely v. Washington , 524 U.S. 596, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004); and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 749 (2005). (Doc. No. 1, petition). Because neither Apprendi, Blakely, nor Booker apply to cases on collateral review, the Court will summarily dismiss the petition pursuant ...


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.