Order Denying Appointment of Counsel — United States v. Gladys Harun (3:23-cr-3) (S.D. Ga. No. 3:23-cr-00003)

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 46 Filed 07/12/24 Pagei1of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
*
Vv. * CR 323-003

*
GLADYS HARUN bs

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JUL 12 2024
ORDER
FILED

Presently before the Court is Defendant Gladys Harun’s motion
for the appointment of counsel to assist her in filing “post-
convictions motions including a 2255.” (Doc. No. 45, at 1.)
Defendant seems most concerned with the Bureau of Prisons’ alleged
refusal to calculate her release date with any appropriate credits.

At the outset, the Court reminds Defendant that she waived
her right to collaterally attack her conviction and sentence on
any ground and by any method, including but not limited to a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion, in her plea agreement. (Doc. No. 8.) Aside
from a collateral attack, the only statute that grants a sentencing
court the authority to modify an imposed sentence is 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c). A prisoner does not have a constitutional or statutory



Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 46 Filed 07/12/24 Page2of3

right to counsel in a proceeding under § 3582(c).1 United States

v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 794-95 (11% Cir. 2009). Instead, the
district court has the discretionary authority to appoint counsel
in the interests of justice. Webb, 565 F.3d at 795 n.4 (noting
there may be equitable concerns that would make the appointment of
counsel appropriate to ensure a just outcome). During the COVID-
19 pandemic and beyond, the Court has read and considered myriad of
compassionate release requests under § 3582(c) (1) (A) filed by pro se
prisoners of varying educations, backgrounds, and circumstances.
Generally speaking, these prisoners have adequately presented their
cases to the Court for judicial review. The Court is confident this
Defendant could also adequately present any case for sentence
modification pro se.

With respect to her complaints about the calculation of a release
date and time credits, the vehicle by which Defendant may judicially
challenge the Bureau of Prisons’ actions in this regard is a petition
for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A § 2241 petition must
be filed in the district of confinement rather than in the

sentencing court. Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495

(llth Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340,

1345 (1lith Cir. 2000) (“A claim for credit for time served is

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the exhaustion of

1 The Court has already denied Defendant’s motion for sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Order of June 18, 2024,
Doc. No. 44.)



Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document46- Filed07/12/24 Page 3of3

administrative remedies.”). Thus, Defendant is advised that she
must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the Bureau of
Prisons and then file a § 2241 petition in the Southern District
of West Virginia.

In conclusion, short of showing that the interests of justice
require the appointment of counsel, which Defendant has not done, the
Court DENIES her motion for the appointment of counsel (doc. no. 45).

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this JA day of July,

UNITED ie ES DISTRICT JUBGE

2024.

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.46.0.pdf

Size

666,215 bytes

SHA-256

99eb3cd749edde6858de373037cc52988e9fe564f3f54aee4abb971f27350f15

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.46.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)