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.

Bradley v. Warden, USP-Lewisburg

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 30, 2019

RASHID BRADLEY, Petitioner
v.
WARDEN, USP-LEWISBURG, Respondent

          MEMORANDUM

          MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner, 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.

         I. Background

         On 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.).

         On April 8, 2010, after a jury trial, Bradley was found guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Id.

         On July 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)

         Under 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.

         Bradley 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.

         The 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.

         On 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.).

         By 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).

Id.

         On 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 ‚Äúsentence should be vacated ...


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.