Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 1 of 8

IN TH E U N ITE D S TATE S D IS TR ICT COU R T F OR TH E D IS TR ICT OF COLOR AD O Cr im in a l Act ion N o. 00-cr -00526-WDM U N ITE D S TATE S OF AME RICA, P la in t iff, v. MAX WILLIAM CH RIS P , Defen d a n t . _____________________________________________________________________ GOVE R N ME N T' S R E S P ON S E TO P U TATIVE MOTION P U R S U AN T TO 2 8 U .S .C. S E CTION 2 2 5 5 _____________________________________________________________________ Th e pla in t iff (a ct u a lly t h e r esp on d en t , a s set ou t below) U n it ed S t a t es of Am er ica (t h e Gover n m en t ), by t h e U n it ed S t a t es At t or n ey for t h e Dist r ict of Color a d o, Tr oy A. E id , a n d by t h e u n d er sign ed Assist a n t U n it ed S t a t es At t or n ey, J oh n H u t ch in s, files t h is r esp on se t o t h e so-ca lled " Mot ion t o Cor r ect S en t en ce" filed , pu t a t ively p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255, by d efen d a n t -m ova n t Ma x Willia m Ch r isp , t h r ou gh cou n sel. F or a va r iet y of r ea son s, t h e m ot ion sh ou ld be d en ied. 1 Th e Gover n m en t st a t es

In h a vin g t h e d ock et p r in t ed on F ebr u a r y 12, 2007, it a p p ea r s t h a t t h e m ot ion wa s d en ied su a sp on te by t h e Cou r t on F ebr u a r y 9, 2007.
1

1

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 2 of 8

a s follows: 1. Accor d in g t o t h e d efen d a n t , h e wa s sen t en ced in t h is cr im in a l

ca se in ea r ly 2003. H is m ot ion t o cor r ect sen t en ce wa s filed on J a n u a r y 10, 2007. Th is H on or a ble Cou r t , in a Min u t e Or d er filed on J a n u a r y 29, 2007, or d er ed t h e gover n m en t t o r esp on d on or befor e F ebr u a r y 12, 2007. 2. Th e d efen d a n t h a s ca p t ion ed h is m ot ion a s a " Mot ion t o

Cor r ect S en t en ce." Th is im p lies t h a t t h e m ot ion t h er efor e is filed p u r su a n t t o F ed .R.Cr im .P . 35, " Cor r ect in g or Red u cin g a S en t en ce." H owever , a s t h e d efen d a n t ' s cou n sel well k n ows, su ch a m ot ion is lim it ed , u n d er Ru le 35(a ), t o " wit h in 7 d a ys a ft er sen t en cin g." U n d er Ru le 35(b), wh ich r ela t es t o t h e givin g of su bst a n t ia l a ssist a n ce t o t h e Gover n m en t , gen er a lly is lim it ed t o " wit h in on e yea r of sen t en cin g." Of cou r se, t h e d efen d a n t is ver y m u ch ou t sid e of t h ose t im e lim it s. 3. Ap p a r en t ly r ecogn izin g t h e lim it a t ion s of Ru le 35, t h e

d efen d a n t h a s in d ica t ed t h a t , in a sk in g for a p r om p t h ea r in g, h e is a ct in g p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255. Assu m in g, a rgu en d o, t h is p r oceed in g r ea lly is a m ot ion p u r su a n t t o § 2255, it st ill wou ld be woefu lly ou t of t im e. As noted, the defendant acknowledges that he was sentenced on January 28,

N on et h eless, t h is r esp on se is bein g filed p u r su a n t t o t h e Cou r t ' s or d er .
2

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 3 of 8

2003. Apparently, the defendant did not appeal and did not have cause to complain about BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Program ­ RDAP) until he was terminated from the program. The defendant, as noted, filed his present motion on January 10, 2007. Obviously, the defendant only "acquired" the issue he presents in his motion (being terminated from RDAP) after he had been in prison some time. This, however (as set out below), does not mean that his conviction in the District of Colorado and its effect was, in any manner, tolled. 4. This chronology presents the defendant with a major problem.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), federal defendants and inmates generally are limited to one post-conviction attack, via 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Just as important, a defendant has only one-year to file such a motion after the conviction becomes final. See United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2003). This defendant does not even claim that he has filed his motion within one year of "discovering" any asserted new facts or that he fall under any exception to the one-year limitation. Therefore, if this were a true motion p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255, it wou ld be u n t im ely. 5. H owever , t h is m ot ion obviou sly is n ot a n a p p r op r ia t e m ot ion

3

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 4 of 8

p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255. As t h is H on or a ble Cou r t well k n ows, t h e p u r p oses of a n a p p lica t ion for a wr it of h a bea s cor p u s p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255 a n d a m ot ion p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2241 a r e d ist in ct a n d well est a blish ed . " A p et it ion u n d er 28 U .S .C. § 2241, a t t a ck s t h e execu t ion of a sen t en ce r a t h er t h a n it s va lid it y a n d m u st be filed in t h e d ist r ict wh er e t h e p r ison er is con fin ed . B ra d sh a w v. S tory, 86 F .3d 164, 166 (10t h Cir . 1996). " A 28 U .S .C. § 2255 p et it ion [m ot ion ] a t t a ck s t h e lega lit y of d et en t ion . . . a n d m u st be filed in t h e d ist r ict t h a t im p osed t h e sen t en ce." 86 F .3d a t 166 (cit a t ion om it t ed). Wh ile t h e defen da n t wa s con vict ed in t h e Dist r ict of Color a d o a n d is, coin cid en t a lly, con fin ed in t h e Dist r ict of Color a d o, t h a t d oes n ot m ea n t h a t h e ca n file eit h er a m ot ion p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2255 or a p et it ion pu r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2241 in t er ch a n gea bly. " Th e p u r p ose of sect ion 2255 is t o p r ovid e a m et h od of d et er m in in g t h e va lid it y of a ju d gm en t by t h e cou r t wh ich im p osed t h e sen t en ce, r a t h er t h a n by t h e cou r t in t h e d ist r ict wh er e t h e p r ison er is con fin ed ." J oh n son v. T a ylor, 347 F .2d 365, 366 (10t h Cir . 1965) (p er cu r ia m ). " Th e exclu sive r em edy for t est in g t h e va lid it y of a ju d gm en t a n d sen t en ce, u n less it is in a d equ a t e or in effect ive, is t h a t p r ovid ed for in 28 U .S .C. § 2255." J oh n son v. T a ylor, 347 F .2d a t 366.
4

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 5 of 8

6.

Wh ile t h e d efen d a n t a sser t s t h a t h e wa s en r olled in t h e RDAP

" [p ]u r su a n t t o t h a t sen t en ce" h e r eceived in t h e Dist r ict of Color a d o, h e d id n ot d ir ect ly a p p ea l h is sen t en ce a s it r ela t ed t o RDAP . Com p a re a n d Con tra st U n ited S ta tes v. B row n , 224 F .3d 1237, 1239 (11t h Cir . 2000). Th e d efen d a n t , t h r ou gh cou n sel, r ea lly is a t t a ck in g t h e execu t ion of h is sen t en ce. If t h e defen d a n t t r u ly wish es t o con t est h is bein g t er m in a t ed fr om t h e p r ogr a m (a p r ogr a m , by t h e wa y, in wh ich BOP h a s m u ch d iscr et ion ), h e sh ou ld file a p et it ion p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2241. As t h is Cou r t is well a wa r e, t h a t is t h e m et h od ology u sed in t h is d ist r ict , a n d ot h er s, t o lit iga t e m a t t er s r ela t in g t o RDAP . S ee, e.g., M a rtin v. R ios, 472 F .3d 1206 (10t h Cir . 2007) (h a bea s cor pu s wa s u sed t o lit iga t e wh et h er BOP wa s in cor r ect ly d en yin g sen t en cin g cr ed it a ft er com p let ion of RDAP ­ it wa sn ' t ). 7. In t h eor y, t h is H on or a ble Cou r t cou ld , if it ga ve t h e d efen d a n t

a ch a n ce t o r esp on d , con ver t t h is a ct ion in t o a p et it ion p u r su a n t t o 28 U .S .C. § 2241. S ee Griggs v. U n ited S ta tes, 79 F ed . Ap p x. 359 (10t h Cir . Oct . 17, 2003) (p ro se in m a t e, wh o sou gh t a wr it of m a n d a m u s r ega r d in g RDAP , h a d h is a ct ion con st r u ed a s h a bea s cor p u s, bu t it wa s r em a n d ed t o t h e d ist r ict cou r t wit h d ir ect ion s t o t r a n sfer it t o t h e d ist r ict of
5

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 6 of 8

con fin em en t ­ wh ich wa s ou t sid e of t h e Ten t h Cir cu it ). Bu t , t h e Gover n m en t , t h r ou gh t h e BOP , a lso wou ld n eed a ch a n ce t o su p p lem en t wit h docu m en t s a n d a decla r a t ion (a s it u su a lly does), defen din g t h e BOP a ct ion in t er m in a t in g t h e defen da n t ' s pa r t icipa t ion in RDAP . In a d d it ion , t h e Gover n m en t , t h r ou gh t h e BOP , wou ld h a ve t o d et er m in e wh et h er t h e d efen d a n t , a s h e im p lies, t ot a lly h a s exh a u st ed h is a d m in ist r a t ive r em edies. 2 Th e ea siest r esolu t ion of t h is m a t t er , h owever , esp ecia lly sin ce t h e in m a t e is n ot a ct in g p ro se, bu t is r ep r esen t ed by a n exp er ien ced a n d k n owled gea ble a t t or n ey, is for d ism issa l (wit h ou t p r eju d ice), so t h a t t h e d efen d a n t (a n d h is cou n sel) m a y r ea ssess t h e sit u a t ion r ea list ica lly a n d d et er m in e wh et h er r e-filin g a s a n ot h er

As t h is Cou r t k n ows, t h e Bu r ea u of P r ison s h a s p r om u lga t ed a n a d m in ist r a t ive r em ed y syst em t h a t is cod ified a t 28 C.F .R. §§ 542.10542.16. E xh a u st ion is n ot com p let e u n t il a n in m a t e exh a u st s a t t h e Cen t r a l Office level. Th e Ten t h Cir cu it r epea t edly h a s h eld t h a t in m a t es m u st exh a u st t h e p r ison s' a d m in ist r a t ive r em ed y p r ocess before filin g a n a p p lica t ion for h a bea s cor p u s. S ee, e.g., U n ited S ta tes v. W ood s, 888 F .2d 653, 654 (10t h Cir . 1989) (exh a u st ion t h r ou gh t h e a d m in ist r a t ive r em edy p r ocess r equ ir ed befor e seek in g ju d icia l r eview u n less r esp on d en t wa ives t h is a r gu m en t ). Wh ile n ot ju r isd ict ion a l, a n in m a t e sh ou ld d em on st r a t e t h a t h e h a s exh a u st ed h is a d m in ist r a t ive r em ed ies. Cf. S teele v. Gu n ja , 355 F .3d 1204, 1207 (10t h Cir . 2003) (P LRA r equ ir es, in a B iven s a ct ion , t h a t a n in m a t e a ffir m a t ively p lea d a n d dem on st r a t e exh a u st ion of a d m in ist r a t ive r em ed ies). Th is exh a u st ion r equ ir em en t a p p lies gen er a lly t o h a bea s cor p u s. S ee W illia m s v. O' B rien , 792 F .2d 986, 987 (10t h Cir . 1986) (in m a t e n ot en t it led t o h a bea s r elief if h e h a sn ' t exh a u st ed ).
6

2

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 7 of 8

p r oceed in g is wor t h t h eir wh ile. TH E RE F ORE , if d ock et en t r y 432, 02/09/2007, is cor r ect , t h en t h is p r oceed in g p r op er ly wa s d en ied a s a m ot ion p u r su a n t t o § 2255. If t h a t en t r y is in er r or , t h en t h is H on or a ble Cou r t sh ou ld d o ju st t h a t . Respectfully submitted, Troy A. Eid United States Attorney

s/_Jo n H u h s h tc in John Hutchins Assistant U.S. Attorney 1225 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 700 Seventeenth Street Plaza Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0200 FAX: (303) 454-0402 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent

7

Case 1:00-cr-00526-WDM

Document 433

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that one this 12 th day of February, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing GOVE R N ME N T' S R E S P ON S E TO P U TATIVE MOTION P U R S U AN T TO 2 8 U .S .C. S E CTION 2 2 5 5, with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system. I further hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing GOVE R N ME N T' S R E S P ON S E TO P U TATIVE MOTION P U R S U AN T TO 2 8 U .S .C. S E CTION 2 2 5 5 , was e-mailed to [email protected] on the 12th day of February, 2007, and physically mailed, postage prepaid, on that same day, addressed to the following: H a r vey A. S t ein ber g, E sq. S p r in ger & S t ein ber g, P .C. 1600 Br oa d wa y, S u it e 1200 Den ver , Color a d o 80202

s/_Jo n H u h s h tc in John Hutchins Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney's Office

8