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.

Streater v. Quintana

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 18, 2016

LLOYD STREATER, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Respondent.

          RULING AND ORDER

          MICHAEL P. SHEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The petitioner, Lloyd Streater, is confined at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 2000 federal conviction. Because the court finds that he may not invoke this court’s jurisdiction under that statute, the court construes his petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. And because this is not his first such motion, the court instructs the clerk to transfer this matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244, and 1631.

         I. Background

         On December 17, 1999, in this court, a jury found the petitioner guilty of count one of the superseding indictment, conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1); count two of the superseding indictment, possession of cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and count three of the superseding indictment, possession of cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United States v. Streater, Case No. 3:97cr232(MPS), Dkt. Entry 408, Verdict Form. On May 26, 2000, Judge Ellen Bree Burns sentenced the petitioner to 480 months of imprisonment on the first count, 480 months of imprisonment on the second count and 240 months of imprisonment on the third count for a total effective sentence of 480 months of imprisonment. The term of imprisonment was to be followed by five years of supervised release. See id., Dkt. Entry 498, Judgment of Conviction.

         The petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence. On May 30, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Blount, 291 Fed.3d 201, 219 (2d Cir. 2002). On January 13, 2003, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s writ seeking review of the decision affirming the judgment of conviction. See Streater v. United States, 573 U.S. 1141 (2003).

         On January 5, 2006, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming that his conviction and sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. See Streater v. United States, Case No. 3:06cv17(EBB), Dkt. Entry 2, Mem. Supp. Mot Vacate Sentence. On July 20, 2006, Judge Burns denied the petitioner’s motion to vacate his sentence on the merits and on August 20, 2006, denied petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability. See Id. Dkt. Entry 10, Ruling and Order & Dkt. Entry 12, Ruling and Order.

         On January 10, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of audita querela. See id., Dkt. Entry 13, Pet. Writ Audita Querela. On April 25, 2011, the court construed the motion as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied it. See id., Dkt. Entry 14, Ruling. The petitioner appealed that ruling. On September 15, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to file a motion for a certificate of appealability. See id., Dkt. Entry 18, USCA Mandate.

         On April 12, 2013, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen his criminal case. See United States v. Streater, Case No. 3:97cr232(MPS), Dkt. Entry 614, Mot. Reopen. On June 26, 2014, the court construed the motion as a successive section 2255 motion and transferred it to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See id., Dkt. Entry 619, Ruling Mots. Reopen and Clarification. On October 30, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petitioner’s motion for leave to file a successive section 2255 motion. See id., Dkt. Entry 621, USCA Mandate.

         On November 14, 2014, the petitioner filed a motion to correct the judgment of conviction. See id., Dkt. Entry 622, Mot. Correct J. On July 13, 2015, the court granted the motion and directed the clerk to correct the descriptions of counts 1, 2 and 3 in the judgment to reflect that cocaine was the only substance at issue and directed the probation office to correct the description of counts 1, 2 and 3 in the Presentence Report to reflect that cocaine was the only substance at issue. See id., Dkt. Entry 627, Ruling and Order. On July 15, 2015, the clerk entered an amended judgment reflecting the changes in the court’s order. See id., Dkt. Entry 628, Amended J.

         II. Legal Standard

         “A motion pursuant to § 2241 generally challenges the execution of a federal prisoner’s sentence, including such matters as the administration of parole, computation of a prisoner’s sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions.” Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001)(citing Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d Cir. 1997) (describing situations where a federal prisoner would properly file a section 2241 petition).

         A motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the other hand, is considered “the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to [the imposition of] his conviction and sentence.” Id. at 146-47. Thus, as a general rule, federal prisoners challenging the imposition of their sentences must do so by a motion filed pursuant to § 2255 rather than a petition filed pursuant to § 2241.

         III. Discussion

         The petitioner challenges his federal conviction and sentence on count two of the superseding indictment which charged him with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of count two of the indictment based on the testimony of a New York City police officer who had arrested one of his co-conspirators, Joseph Pollard. See Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1 at 3-4. During the petitioner’s trial, this officer allegedly testified that he seized crack cocaine from Joseph Pollard at the time of Pollard’s arrest in February 1997. See Id. Because the present petition ...


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.