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.

Vallery v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

September 4, 2018

RONNELL VALLERY, Petitioner
v.
CALVIN JOHNSON Respondent

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Ronnell Vallery (“Vallery”) (#29981-034). Vallery is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Vallery challenges his conviction and sentence.

         Because Vallery cannot meet the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), his petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. Background

         Following a guilty plea to two counts of a superseding indictment, Vallery was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), a quantity of cocaine hydrochloride, and a quantity of heroin and marijuana, and of making a dwelling available for manufacturing, distributing, sorting, and using controlled substances. United States v. Vallery, 06-cr-269, 2009 WL 2488131, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2009). Vallery also entered a guilty plea to a superseding bill of information charging him with one prior felony drug offense. In return, the government agreed not to charge Vallery with two prior felony drug convictions, which could have resulted in a mandatory life sentence. Id.

         Vallery further agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction and/or sentence, as well as his right to contest his conviction and/or sentence in any collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except for claims of ineffective assistance directly affecting the validity of the wavier of rights or the validity of the guilty plea. Id. Vallery also reserved his right to bring a direct appeal of any sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Id.

         Vallery was sentenced to the statutorily mandated minimum sentence of 240 months as to the first count, and 151 as to the other count, to be served concurrently. Id.

         Vallery filed a motion pursuant to § 2255 based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing hearing. Id. Vallery's motion was denied and dismissed with prejudice as meritless. Id.

         Vallery filed a motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. United States v. Vallery, 399 Fed.Appx. 862, 863 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court denied the motion, determining that Vallery was ineligible for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because Vallery received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). Id. Vallery appealed. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as frivolous. Id.

         Vallery filed another motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. (2:06-cr-00269 E.D. La., Doc. 425). The motion was again denied because Vallery is serving the mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months. (2:06-cr-00269 E.D. La., Doc. 436).

         Thereafter, Vallery filed a motion to appoint counsel because of his belief that he is entitled to a sentence reduction. (2:06-cr-00269 E.D. La., Doc. 487). The court denied the motion, reiterating that, because Vallery is serving a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months, a reduction is not permitted. (2:06-cr-00269 E.D. La., Doc. 488).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Vallery does not meet the requirements of the savings clause.

         Vallery seeks to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e), which provides a limited exception to the rule that a § 2241 petition may not be used to challenge the validity of a federal sentence and conviction. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The savings clause allows a prisoner to rely on § 2241 if the remedy available under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The burden of ...


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.