Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing Guidelines

By: Derek Hawkins//September 26, 2021//

Sentencing Guidelines

By: Derek Hawkins//September 26, 2021//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Michael L. Millis v. M. Segal

Case No.: 20-1520

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines

In 1994, Michael Millis was found guilty of several crimes related to a pair of armed robberies in the Eastern District of Kentucky. At sentencing, Millis’s previous convictions qualified him as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. Millis received a total sentence of 410 months’ imprisonment and since his confinement, he has sought post-conviction relief at least a dozen times.

Millis does so again here. Attempting to benefit from intervening legal changes that affect his career offender designation, Millis invokes what is often known as the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), which would allow him to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But the savings clause is a narrow exception to the general rule that a federal sentence must be collaterally attacked under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Millis’s sentence on his guidelines counts fell within the range for a non-career offender, so the district court held that his career offender designation had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the third element of this court’s savings clause test. We agree and affirm the denial of his habeas petition.

Affirmed

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests