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.

Snype v. United States

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 3, 2014

VERNON SNYPE, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Vernon Snype, Petitioner, Pro se, White Deer, PA.

For United States Of America, Respondent: Mark Morrison, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office - Prisoner, Harrisburg, PA.

MEMORANDUM

William J. Nealon Jr., United States District Judge.

Petitioner, Vernon Snype, an inmate presently confined in the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1, petition). He challenges a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for bank robbery. Id. Specifically, Petitioner claims that his " current federal sentence was enhanced based upon unconstitutional prior state convictions." Id. A response and traverse having been filed, the petition is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Background

On June 1, 2004, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Snype was found guilty on one (1) count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 371, 2113.[1] See United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006). He was sentenced to life in prison pursuant to § 70001(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (commonly referred to as the " three-strikes" law). Id. Snype was given an enhanced sentence based upon his three (3) New York convictions for serious violent felonies. Id.

Snype filed an appeal of his judgment and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Id. On March 17, 2006, Snype's conviction was affirmed. See United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 923, 127 S.Ct. 285, 166 L.Ed.2d 218 (2006), rehearing denied, 549 U.S. 1090, 127 S.Ct. 759, 166 L.Ed.2d 587 (2006).

On October 24, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Snype, 2009 WL 2611930 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2009).

By Memorandum decision dated August 24, 2009, Petitioner's § 2255 motion was denied. Id. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. See United States v. Snvpe, 2009 WL 3172728 (Oct. 6, 2009).

On February 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with this Court, challenging his federal sentence on the ground that it was " enhanced based upon unconstitutional prior state convictions." See Snype v. United States, Civil No. 3:14-cv-0249. By Memorandum and Order dated April 29, 2014, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner requesting leave from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. Id.

In May 2014, Snype petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to file a second or successive petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Doc. 1 at 60, Order).

By Order dated June 5, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request because " [n]one of Petitioner's claims rely on any newly discovered evidence within the meaning of § 2255(h), or a new rule of law that has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court." Id.

On July 11, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241, again challenging the District Court's enhancement to his sentence as " based upon ...


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.