UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
Criminal No. 06-350 (CKK)
FANEL J`OSEPH, Defendant.
MEMORANI)UM oPrNroN (May s, 2018)
Pending before this Court is pro se Defendant Fanel Joseph’s [30} Motion for Declaratory Relief or Alternateiy an Irnmigration Departure (“Def.’s Mot.”)', the United States’ {32] Response to the Defendant’s Motion (“Govt_ Resp.”); and the Defendant’s [38] Reply to the Governrnent (“Def, ’s Reply”). Upon consideration of the pleadings and the entire_record in this case, the Court DENlES Defendant’s request for an immigration departureJ construes the Defendant’s Motion as- a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and transfers this matter to the judicial district where the Defendant is incarceratedl
Bacl
On or about October 15, 2005, Defendant Fanel Joseph (“Defendant” or “Mr. Fanel) was arrested in Haiti, and he was held in a Hfaitian jail until he was brought to the United States
approximately 15 months later, Mr. }oseph was indicted by a federal grand jury on Decernber 6,
‘ In preparing this Memorandum Opinion, the Court also considered the l.\/Ir. Joseph’s Indictment, ECF No. l', the transcript from Defendant’s January 3l, 2008 sentencing ECF No_ 17; -a letter written by Mr. Joseph, dated August 18, 2016, ECF No. 18, t`or which leave to file was granted; a Mernorandurn in Opposition filed by the Government, ECF N`o. 24‘, Defendant‘s Reply to the Opposition, ECF No. 26; the Government’s Surreply, ECF No. 28; and this Court’s ()rder dated January 18, 2017.
2006, and charged with one count of Hostage Taking of a United States National and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1203 (a) and 2. See Indictment, ECF No. 1. On }anuary 30, 2007, the Defendant was arraigned, and he entered a plea of guilty to one count of Hostage Taking on March 9, 2007. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Joseph was sentenced to 194 months incarceration, followed by 60 months of supervised release This period of incarceration, which started as 200 months, incorporated a six month sentence reduction based upon Defendant’s status as a “deportable alien.” See Transcript of Sentencing, ECF No. 17, at 50 (where this Court found 194 months to be a sentence that was “suffrcient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the objectives under the statute,” and declined to reduce the Defendant’s sentence by fifteen months on grounds that “[t]o a large degree, [Defendant] being held [in Haiti] was [because] he would not admit his role, unlike the other defendants . . . .”).
Defendant’s revised projected release date from the Bureau of Prisons’ (“B(}P”) custody is November 13, 2019, and he is currently incarcerated at the Rivers Correctional Institution (“Rivers Cl”) in Winton, North Carolina. See Govt. Resp. at 3.
Defendant’s Previous Motion seeking Credit for Time Incarcerated in Haiti
Defendant requested previously that this Court recalculate his sentence in light of his fifteen month detention in Haiti prior to his extradition to the United States. See August 18, 2016 letter to the Court, ECF No. 18. The Government’s-response to Defendant’s letter treated it as a motion to modify Mr. Joseph’s sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), and asserted that this Court: (1) had no authority, post~conviction, to reduce or modify Defendant’s sentence because the exceptions in that statutory section were inapplicablej and (2) had already considered this request by Defendant during the sentencing hearing Defendant asked the Court to treat his request
for relief as a motion brought under 28 U.SC. § 2241, and to transfer the matter to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the district where he Was incarcerated The Government did not object to the proposed transfer
On January 18, 2017j this Court issued an ()rder directing the Clerl<’s Ofi'ice to open a new civil case related to the Defendant’s request for relief, and transferring that case to the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. According to the Governrnent, “the BOP reviewed and audited the defendant’s sentence computations and determined that he had been incarcerated in Haiti from October 14, 2005, until January 29, 2007, thus entitling him to the 15 months’ credit he sought” and the Defendant’s release date was adjusted to November 13, 2019. See Govt. Resp., ECF No. 32, at 2-3.
Defendant’s Instant Motion
Defendant requests that this Court order BOP to transfer him to a federal correctional institution that conducts lnstitutional Hearing Programs for deportable aliensj because the facility in which he is currently housed ~W~ Rivers Cl m does not have such a program, with the effect that a defendant incarcerated at Rivers CI may not receive a deportation hearing and could be subject to detention at a United States immigration facility for one year or more after the completion of his sentencel See Def.’s l\/Iot., ECF No. 30, at l; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (a)(3)(A) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General shafl provide for the initiation and, to the extent possible, the completion of removal proceedings . . . in the case of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony before the alien’s release from incarceration for the underlying aggravated felony.”) Alternatively, Mr. Joseph requests that this Court grant an immigration
departure of up to one year to “remedy any immigration detention beyond [his] term of
imprisonment.” See Def.’s Mot. at 15.2
This Court first addresses Mr. Joseph’s request for a Smr'lh departure, noting that the Court previously provided the Defendant with a six month immigration departure at the time of l\/lr. J`oseph’s sentencing based on his status as a “deportable alien.” See Transcript of Sentencing, ECF No. 17, at 50; See also Smilh v United Si'ales, 27 F.3d 649, 655 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (concluding that it may be appropriate to apply a downward departure where the defendant’s status as a deportable alien is “lil
The Government argues that because the Defendant is challenging the execution, or serving of, his sentence, this challenge must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Smirh v. United Siares, 277 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2003) (a challenge to a sentence executed by the BOP is brought under Section 2241)_ ln the instant case, Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
Criminal No. 06-350 (CKK)
FANEL J`OSEPH, Defendant.
MEMORANI)UM oPrNroN (May s, 2018)
Pending before this Court is pro se Defendant Fanel Joseph’s [30} Motion for Declaratory Relief or Alternateiy an Irnmigration Departure (“Def.’s Mot.”)', the United States’ {32] Response to the Defendant’s Motion (“Govt_ Resp.”); and the Defendant’s [38] Reply to the Governrnent (“Def, ’s Reply”). Upon consideration of the pleadings and the entire_record in this case, the Court DENlES Defendant’s request for an immigration departureJ construes the Defendant’s Motion as- a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and transfers this matter to the judicial district where the Defendant is incarceratedl
Bacl
On or about October 15, 2005, Defendant Fanel Joseph (“Defendant” or “Mr. Fanel) was arrested in Haiti, and he was held in a Hfaitian jail until he was brought to the United States
approximately 15 months later, Mr. }oseph was indicted by a federal grand jury on Decernber 6,
‘ In preparing this Memorandum Opinion, the Court also considered the l.\/Ir. Joseph’s Indictment, ECF No. l', the transcript from Defendant’s January 3l, 2008 sentencing ECF No_ 17; -a letter written by Mr. Joseph, dated August 18, 2016, ECF No. 18, t`or which leave to file was granted; a Mernorandurn in Opposition filed by the Government, ECF N`o. 24‘, Defendant‘s Reply to the Opposition, ECF No. 26; the Government’s Surreply, ECF No. 28; and this Court’s ()rder dated January 18, 2017.
2006, and charged with one count of Hostage Taking of a United States National and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1203 (a) and 2. See Indictment, ECF No. 1. On }anuary 30, 2007, the Defendant was arraigned, and he entered a plea of guilty to one count of Hostage Taking on March 9, 2007. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Joseph was sentenced to 194 months incarceration, followed by 60 months of supervised release This period of incarceration, which started as 200 months, incorporated a six month sentence reduction based upon Defendant’s status as a “deportable alien.” See Transcript of Sentencing, ECF No. 17, at 50 (where this Court found 194 months to be a sentence that was “suffrcient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the objectives under the statute,” and declined to reduce the Defendant’s sentence by fifteen months on grounds that “[t]o a large degree, [Defendant] being held [in Haiti] was [because] he would not admit his role, unlike the other defendants . . . .”).
Defendant’s revised projected release date from the Bureau of Prisons’ (“B(}P”) custody is November 13, 2019, and he is currently incarcerated at the Rivers Correctional Institution (“Rivers Cl”) in Winton, North Carolina. See Govt. Resp. at 3.
Defendant’s Previous Motion seeking Credit for Time Incarcerated in Haiti
Defendant requested previously that this Court recalculate his sentence in light of his fifteen month detention in Haiti prior to his extradition to the United States. See August 18, 2016 letter to the Court, ECF No. 18. The Government’s-response to Defendant’s letter treated it as a motion to modify Mr. Joseph’s sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), and asserted that this Court: (1) had no authority, post~conviction, to reduce or modify Defendant’s sentence because the exceptions in that statutory section were inapplicablej and (2) had already considered this request by Defendant during the sentencing hearing Defendant asked the Court to treat his request
for relief as a motion brought under 28 U.SC. § 2241, and to transfer the matter to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the district where he Was incarcerated The Government did not object to the proposed transfer
On January 18, 2017j this Court issued an ()rder directing the Clerl<’s Ofi'ice to open a new civil case related to the Defendant’s request for relief, and transferring that case to the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. According to the Governrnent, “the BOP reviewed and audited the defendant’s sentence computations and determined that he had been incarcerated in Haiti from October 14, 2005, until January 29, 2007, thus entitling him to the 15 months’ credit he sought” and the Defendant’s release date was adjusted to November 13, 2019. See Govt. Resp., ECF No. 32, at 2-3.
Defendant’s Instant Motion
Defendant requests that this Court order BOP to transfer him to a federal correctional institution that conducts lnstitutional Hearing Programs for deportable aliensj because the facility in which he is currently housed ~W~ Rivers Cl m does not have such a program, with the effect that a defendant incarcerated at Rivers CI may not receive a deportation hearing and could be subject to detention at a United States immigration facility for one year or more after the completion of his sentencel See Def.’s l\/Iot., ECF No. 30, at l; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (a)(3)(A) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General shafl provide for the initiation and, to the extent possible, the completion of removal proceedings . . . in the case of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony before the alien’s release from incarceration for the underlying aggravated felony.”) Alternatively, Mr. Joseph requests that this Court grant an immigration
departure of up to one year to “remedy any immigration detention beyond [his] term of
imprisonment.” See Def.’s Mot. at 15.2
This Court first addresses Mr. Joseph’s request for a Smr'lh departure, noting that the Court previously provided the Defendant with a six month immigration departure at the time of l\/lr. J`oseph’s sentencing based on his status as a “deportable alien.” See Transcript of Sentencing, ECF No. 17, at 50; See also Smilh v United Si'ales, 27 F.3d 649, 655 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (concluding that it may be appropriate to apply a downward departure where the defendant’s status as a deportable alien is “lil
The Government argues that because the Defendant is challenging the execution, or serving of, his sentence, this challenge must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Smirh v. United Siares, 277 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2003) (a challenge to a sentence executed by the BOP is brought under Section 2241)_ ln the instant case, Mr. Joseph asserts that Section 2241 is not his “only path in this matter” because “the Court has the power to form a remedyunder 1228,” but he provides no support for this assertion, choosing instead to rely generally on Article III of the Constitution and a court’s ability to provide declaratory relief Therefore, this Court treats Defendant’s motion as a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
A petitioner’s “immediate custodian” is the proper respondent in a Section 2241 habeas
1 lt is speculative at this point to conclude that that Mr. Joseph will necessarily be held in immigration detention for one year.
corpus action. See Rumsjield v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 434-35 (2004); see also B[air~Bey v. Quick, 151 F_3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[T]the appropriate defendant in a habeas action is the custodian of the prisoner[,]” which means the warden of the prison.) (citing Chatmcm-Bey v. Mornburg, 864 F. 2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc))). Actions pursuant to Section 2241 must be brought in the district where the defendant is incarcerated as opposed to the district where the defendant was sentenced, and in this case, that would be the Eastern District of North Carolina. See Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 374 F.3d 123 5, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (fmding that the district court “may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”); see also Ir) re Trl`pati, 836 F.Zd 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“A habeas petition may be adjudicated only in the district in which [defendant’s] immediate custodian, his warden, is located”).
Accordingly, because Mr. Joseph challenges the execution, or serving of, his sentence, his Motion shall be treated as a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and this matter shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, where
Rivers CI is located A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion_
2 7 t t cas nn ear coLLEEN KoLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge