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.

Joseph v. Breckon

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 17, 2018

PATRICK JOSEPH, Petitioner,
v.
M. BRECKON, Respondent.

          PATRICK JOSEPH Petitioner, pro se

          HON. GRANT C. JAQUITH Acting United States Attorney

          CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Assistant United States Attorney

          DECISION AND ORDER

          HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Patrick Joseph, presently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ray Brook, New York, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1, Petition ("Pet."); Dkt. No. 1-1, Memorandum of Law ("P. Mem."); Dkt. No. 1-2, Exhibits. Respondent filed a response, and petitioner filed a reply. Dkt. No. 6, Response; Dkt. No. 7, Reply.

         For the reasons that follow, the petition is dismissed.

         II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         A. The Conviction and Sentence at Issue

         In December 2003, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, petitioner and others were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, as well as one count of attempted possession with intent to distribute on a different date. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 24-27, Indictment; see also United States v. Joseph, No. 0:03-CR-60278 ("Joseph"), Dkt. No. 22, Indictment.[1] On February 12, 2004, following a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of the second count of the indictment, charging him with attempted possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 36, Judgment in a Criminal Case; Joseph, Dkt. No. 91, Verdict.

         In advance of sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report ("PSR"). Dkt. No. 1-2 at 58. The PSR reflects that petitioner's criminal history included convictions for battery (1990), trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine (1990), illegal reentry of a deported alien (1997, following his deportation after his trafficking convictions), and battery on a police officer (1998). Dkt. No. 1-2 at 69-74. The PSR recommended that petitioner be sentenced as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, concluding that

[a]ccording to [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.1(a), the defendant is considered a career offender because he was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant offense, the instant offense is a controlled substance offense, and the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of a controlled substance offense and a crime of violence. The defendant was convicted on September 16, 1991, for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and on July 10, 2001, for battery on a police officer. Since the statutory maximum penalty for the instant offense is life, the offense level is 37, § 4B1.1(b).

Id. at 68-69. The PSR concluded that, based on the total offense level and petitioner's criminal history, the guideline imprisonment range was 360 months to life imprisonment. Id. at 80.

         On March 31, 2004, through counsel, petitioner submitted objections to the PSR, arguing, among other things, that he should not be sentenced as a career offender. Id. at 51-53; Joseph, Dkt. No. 101 at 6-8. On April 22, 2004, the district court sentenced petitioner to 360 months imprisonment. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 37; Joseph, Dkt. No. 110, Criminal Minutes; Dkt. No. 112 at 2, Judgment in a Criminal Case.

         B. ...


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.