United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, ETC.
STARRETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Petition for writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241  by
Paul Winfield, the Report and Recommendation  of
Magistrate Judge Micharl T. Parker, Petitioner's
Objections  to Report and Recommendation, Response in
Opposition  to Petitioner's Objection, and the
records and pleadings herein and the Court does hereby find
as follows to wit:
Paul Winfield is the former mayor of Vicksburg, Mississippi.
On March 19, 2013, Petitioner, while serving as mayor, was
indicted for theft or bribery concerning programs receiving
federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
666(a)(1)(B). Following a guilty plea, Petitioner was
convicted of this crime in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi on or about November
19, 2013. See United States v. Winfield, 5:13-cv-5-
DCB-FKB (S.D. Miss 2013). Petitioner was sentenced to a
25-month term of imprisonment and a three-year term of
supervised release. Id. Petitioner completed his
term of imprisonment.
January 16, 2018, Petitioner, while serving his term of
supervised release, filed the instant Petition , arguing
that his conviction is no longer valid in light of the
Supreme Court's holding in McDonnell v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016). On March 21, 2018,
Respondent filed a Response , arguing that this Court does
not have jurisdiction to consider this § 2241 habeas
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is
required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v. Gust,
921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is
“entitled to a de novo review by an Article
III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is
made.”) Such review means that this Court will examine
the entire record and will make an independent assessment of
the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections
that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature.
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). No. factual objection is
raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained
in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d
290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner lodges three objections to the Report and
Recommendation. They are as follows:
1. That the wrong standard of review was employed in
determining whether a Supreme Court case was retroactively
applicable and that Petitioner was required to prove that he
was convicted of a non-existent offense.
2. That the Report and Recommendation does not contain any
factual findings or factual analysis; and
3. That the Report and Recommendation is an overly restricted
reading of the Supreme Court's analogous precedent.
has not established that he may have been convicted of a
non-existent offense. McDonnell v. United States,
136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016) is not applicable. This case addressed
an entirely different statute. Petitioner made no effort to
establish that he was legally or factually innocent and the
Court has reviewed the Presentence Report that was filed in
the underlying criminal case, 5:13-cr-5-DCB-FKB. Petitioner
made no objections to the facts set forth in the Presentence
Report which was adopted by the Court. The factual basis set
forth in the Presentence Report clearly sets forth violations
of the law. There was also a factual basis stated by the
prosecutor at the guilty plea. The Court does not have access
to the factual basis but suffice to say Judge Bramlette found
that the Government had established a factual basis for the
crime and the factual basis was agreed to by the Petitioner.
Petitioner has the burden to establish actual innocence which
has has failed to do and the Court finds that his first
objection is WITHOUT MERIT.
second objection is that the Report and Recommendation does
not contain any factual findings which support the conclusion
that Mr. Winfield failed to meet his burden to obtain habeas
relief. The authority cited by Petitioner was Santillana
v. Upton, 846 F.3d 779, 784 (5th Cir. 2017).
In this case the facts were agreed to by the Petitioner as
set forth in the Presentence Report, the factual basis agreed
to by Petitioner and the findings of Judge Bramlette. There
is no issue for this Court to make factual findings on.
Everything was admitted to by the Petitioner and adopted by
the Court. It is also telling that the Petitioner made very
little effort to point any facts out to the Court and makes
only bald assertions ...