United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rashid Bradley, an inmate confined in the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed this petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241.
(Doc. 1). He challenges his 2010 sentence imposed by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Id. Specifically, he requests that his
“sentence must be vacated for resentencing without the
ACCA enhancement.” Id. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of
habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.
April 14, 2009, Bradley was indicted in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for being a felon in possession of a firearm
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(1) and
924(e)(1). United States v. Bradley, No.
2:09-CR-00246 (E.D. Pa.).
April 8, 2010, after a jury trial, Bradley was found guilty
of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
7, 2010, Bradley was sentenced. Id. Under 18 U.S.C.
§924(e)(1), Bradley faced a mandatory minimum sentence
of fifteen years because he had three previous convictions
for serious drug offenses committed on different occasions:
possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, in violation of
35 Pa. Cons.Stat. §780-113(a)(30). United States v.
Bradley, 505 Fed.Appx. 220, 221 (3d Cir. 2012)
U.S.S.G. §4B1.4, Bradley's offense level was 33.
Id. With a criminal history category of IV,
Bradley's sentencing guideline range was 188-235
months' imprisonment. Id. The District Court
denied a downward departure from the guideline range.
Id. But after noting that some 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a) factors might weigh in favor of a reduced
sentence, the court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of 180 months. Id.
filed a pro se appeal contending the mandatory
minimum sentence does not apply to him because the third of
his state convictions, for an offense committed in October,
1997, was for mere possession of cocaine, not possession with
intent to deliver. Id.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected
Bradley's contention, noting that the Government had
produced certified copies of Bradley's convictions of
“possession with intent to deliver - twice in 1996 and
once in 1997, in violation of 35 Pa. Cons. Stat.
§780-113(a)(30). Since all three offenses involved
cocaine, they were each punishable by a term of imprisonment
‘not exceeding ten years.' Id.,
§780-113(f)(1.1).” Bradley, 505 Fed.Appx.
at 221-22. As such, Bradley had three serious drug offenses
and was properly sentenced under the ACCA. Id.
March 4, 2014, Bradley filed a motion to vacate his
conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255.
Id. As alleged in the instant petition, Bradley
claimed that his Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) sentence was in error because the jury
had not been presented with evidence of his three state
convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver
and because the convictions should not have been treated as
separate convictions since they were consolidated for
sentencing purposes. United States v. Bradley, No.
2:09-CR-00246 (E.D. Pa.).
Order dated July 17, 2014, the sentencing court dismissed
Bradley's §2255 motion, finding the following:
The defendant make two arguments, both of which challenge his
classification as an armed career criminal. His challenge to
his status as an armed career criminal for sentencing
purposes has already been rejected by the Third Circuit.
United States v. Bradley, 505 Fed.Appx. 220 (3d Cir.
2012). The defendant may not re-litigate in a petition under
28 U.S.C. §2255 the same issues that have been decided
on direct appeal. See Gov't of Virgin Islands v.
Nicholas, 759 F.2d 1073, 1075 (3d Cir. 1985); United
States v. Derewal, 10 F.3d 100, 105 n.4 (3d Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Third Circuit has rejected the same
arguments in similar cases. United States v.
Schoolcroft, 879 F.2d 64, 73 (3d Cir. 1989); United
States v. Tucker, 511 Fed.Appx. 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2013).
April 27, 2017, Bradley filed the instant petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, arguing
that in light of Mathis v. UnitedStates,136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016); United States v. Hinkle, 832
F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016); and Holt v. United
States v. Mathis (No. 16-1793)(7th Cir. Dec. 13,2016), his “sentence should be vacated ...