United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Vincent Savageau, pro se
R. Aframe, Esq.
B. McCafferty United States District Judge
Savageau, currently an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution ("FCI") McKean in Pennsylvania, filed
this petition (doc. no. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, while he was an inmate at FCI Berlin
in New Hampshire. Before the court is the respondent
Warden's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 7), to which
Savageau objected (doc. no. 9). Savageau filed two further
documents (doc. nos. 8, 10), which this court deems to be
addenda to the petition, which this court may screen to
determine whether the claims in those addenda are facially
valid. See LR 4.3(d)(4)(A); Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases ("§ 2254 Rules")
(judge may screen and then dismiss petition sua sponte if it
plainly appears on its face that petitioner is not entitled
to relief); see also § 2254 Rule 1(b) (§
2254 Rules may apply to § 2241 petitions).
relevant times, Savageau had the following convictions for
Massachusetts felonies, dating from 2002-2003: one for
unarmed assault with intent to rob, see Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 265 § 20, one for assault and battery,
see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 13(a), and two
for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
(hereinafter "Springfield cocaine convictions"), in
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C § 32A(a) and Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 94C § 32C(a). See Commonwealth v.
Savageau, No. 0279CR00737 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden
Cnty., filed Sept. 19, 2002); Commonwealth v.
Savageau, No. 0223CR009113 (Mass. Dist. Ct.,
Springfield, filed Aug. 22, 2002); Commonwealth v.
Savageau, No. 0223CR002371 (Mass. Dist. Ct.,
Springfield, filed Feb. 28, 2002).
procedural history in Savageau's subsequently filed
federal criminal case, United States v. Savageau,
No. 1:06-cr- 00092 (S.D. Ga.) ("Criminal
Case"), which related to armed bank robberies that
occurred in Georgia in April 2006, has been described as
On September 28, 2006, Petitioner [Savageau] pled guilty to
one count of conspiracy to rob commercial businesses, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; two counts of armed bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) &
(d); and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(ii).... Petitioner [was sentenced] to serve
concurrent 164-month terms of imprisonment on the conspiracy
and armed robbery counts, and to serve a consecutive 84-month
term of imprisonment on the firearm count; a judgment was
entered on September 26, 2007. Because he had three prior
convictions - two for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine and one for assault - the range for [Savageau's]
sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
["Guidelines"] was longer than it would have been
without the prior convictions.
Petitioner's appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal,
following which he filed an appellate brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there were no arguable issues of merit on appeal. The
Eleventh Circuit agreed and affirmed Petitioner's
convictions and sentences on September 17, 2008. United
States v. Savageau, 292 Fed.Appx. 895 (11th Cir. 2008)
Savageau v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00016-WTM-WLB
("2255 Motion"), 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 24920, at *1-*3, 2012 WL 630052, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb.
7, 2012) (footnote and citations omitted), R&R
adopted, No. 1:12-cv-00016-WTM-WLB, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 24902, 2012 WL 629110 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2012).
asserts that the Presentence Investigation Report
("PSR") in his federal criminal case recommended
that he be sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1, upon the finding in the PSR that his two
Springfield cocaine convictions were "controlled
substance offenses" and his Massachusetts assault with
intent to rob was a "crime of violence" under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. See Pet. (Doc. no. 1), at 13,
14. Savageau asserts that the court in his federal criminal
case applied the career offender Guidelines range in
sentencing him, although he asserts his state sentences for
those convictions were imposed on the same date. Id.
filed a pro se motion seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 in the Southern District of Georgia in 2011, claiming
that his state court convictions resulted from ineffective
assistance of counsel in those cases. The court in
Savageau's federal criminal case denied the motion as
barred by the statute of limitations and declined to issue a
certificate of appealability. See 2255 Motion, 2012
WL 629110, at *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24902, at *1
(adopting Feb. 7, 2012 R&R, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24920,
2012 WL 630052).
instant § 2241 petition and its addenda, Savageau
asserts claims challenging the calculations underlying his
164-month concurrent sentences on the conspiracy and armed
bank robbery convictions, and his consecutive 84-month
sentence for brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c), as follows:
1. Citing Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), Savageau claims that his prior convictions did not
qualify him as a ...