United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge.
Jay Raney, Sr. has filed several motions in his various open
cases challenging his criminal convictions, sentences,
revocation of supervised release, and resentencing. They are
resolved as discussed below.
Original Challenges to Convictions
was originally sentenced in the Northern District of Illinois
on April 23, 2002, following convictions for: (1)
transportation with intent to engage in a sexual act with a
juvenile in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b); and (2)
attempt to manufacture child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. United
States v. Raney, 342 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2003). Raney
then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to
vacate his conviction, which was rejected by the Northern
District of Illinois on August 25, 2004. United States v.
Raney, No. 03-cv-2708, 2004 WL 2056222 (N.D. Ill.).
Raney did not pursue an appeal on his § 2255 motion.
serving his federal sentence, Raney then filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division,
challenging the validity of a detainer lodged against him by
the State of Wisconsin. The district court found that Raney
was not entitled to relief from the detainer and dismissed
his petition. Raney v. Hollingsworth, No. 09-cv-292,
2009 WL 817113 (E.D. Wis. March 25, 2009). Raney also failed
to appeal that decision.
December of 2011, Raney also filed a motion to modify his
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), asking the trial
court to eliminate his three-year term of supervised release.
The trial court found that Raney was not entitled to relief
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), or any other theory for
that matter, and denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
United States v. Raney, No. 01-cr-557 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 24, 2012).
Renewed Challenges to Convictions and Revocation of
serving two, concurrent 145-month terms of imprisonment,
Raney began three-year, concurrent terms of supervised
release in the Northern District of Illinois on February 10,
2012. Jurisdiction over Raney was transferred to this
district on July 27, 2012. Since then, Raney has continued to
file challenges to his convictions and sentences.
August 14, 2012, Raney filed another round of challenges to
his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241
and 2255, as well as 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This court
denied relief because: (1) his § 2255 motion was an
unauthorized successive petition; (2) he could not rely on
§ 2241 for relief having failed to show that § 2255
was inadequate or ineffective to challenge his conviction or
sentence; and (3) he did not raise any claims that would fall
under § 3582(c)(2). (Dkt. #9 in 12-cv-584-wmc.)
October 4, 2013, Raney next appeared before this court on the
probation office's petition for judicial review of his
supervised release. The court found that Raney had violated
the conditions of his supervision by: possessing a two
gigabyte memory stick without permission from his supervising
probation officer; and associating with convicted felon Timmy
J. Reichling, again without permission. The defendant's
term of supervised release was nevertheless continued with
the express provision that: (1) he must remain in strict
compliance with all terms and conditions of his release as
previously imposed; and (2) any contact, direct or indirect,
in person or via other technology with Mr. Reichling would
itself constitute a revocable offense unless that contact was
approved in advance and in writing by the probation office or
was arranged through defendant's legal counsel.
October 14, 2014, Raney appeared for another judicial review
hearing. The court again found that Raney had violated terms
of his supervised release, including that: he had received
permission to travel outside the district but had failed to
tell his probation officer that he would be travelling with
minor children; and he had been associating with minor
children for several months without the knowledge of his
probation officer. Following the hearing, the court revoked
Raney's supervised release and sentenced him to 9
months' prison to be followed by 24 months'
supervised release. (Dkt. #25 in 12-cr-100.) Raney
immediately filed notice appealing the revocation and
conditions of his renewed supervised release.
Further Challenges to Underlying Convictions and Release
March 17, 2015, while his appeal was still pending, Raney
filed three more motions in his criminal case, Case No.
12-cr-100: (1) a request for a new judge and a new hearing on
revocation (dkt. #40); (2) a request for stay of the
revocation pending his Seventh Circuit appeal (dkt. #39); and
(3) a motion to vacate the revocation order under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (dkt. #41). The § 2255 motion was also
docketed under Case No. 15-cv-174-wmc. The court denied all
three motions. With respect to the motion under § 2255
in particular, the court dismissed the motion as premature
while Raney's direct appeal was still pending. (Dkt.
#45). On August 12, 2015, the Seventh Circuit also upheld
revocation of defendant's supervised release, but granted
the appeal with respect to the sentencing and conditions of
supervised release, and remanded the case to this court for
resentencing. United States v. Raney, 797 F.3d 454
(7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2015).
September 20, 2015, after the Seventh Circuit's decision
but before the resentencing hearing was held, Raney filed yet
another motion in the Northern District of Illinois to
“Set Aside or Stay Sentence Pending the Results of the
2255 Motion Filed with this Court.” The Northern
District construed the motion as one for relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, transferring it to this court. (Raney
v. United States, 15-cv-639-wmc.) A couple of weeks
later, Raney filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this court, once again attempting to
raise various challenges to his underlying conviction, as
well as to the revocation of his supervised release.
(Raney v. United States, 15-cv-663-wmc.)
court held a resentencing hearing on November 6, 2015, in
accordance with the Seventh Circuit's instructions. After
that hearing, the court again concluded that a 9- month
period of incarceration and a 24-month term of supervised
release was appropriate. The court also held that all
standard and special conditions of supervised release
previously imposed were appropriate, with some modifications.
By this time, Raney had already served his 9-month period of
incarceration, meaning the sole effect of resentencing was to
reinstate the two years of supervised release under the same
conditions as before. (Dkt. #61 in 12-cr-100-wmc).
November 16, 2015, Raney filed a notice of appeal with the
Seventh Circuit, once again purporting to challenge the
procedural soundness of his sentence, as well as imposition
of a condition of supervised release that requires him to
“notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned
by [his] criminal record or personal history or
characteristics.” On December 2, 2015, Raney filed a
new motion under Raney v. United States,
15-cv-782-wmc. He also filed a “motion to set aside or
stay sentence or grant a new hearing pending the results of
the § 2255” motion, as well as a “motion for
a new judge” in all of his open cases. The Seventh
Circuit affirmed Raney's resentencing on December 1,
2016. United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d 1041 (7th
Motions for a New Judge (Dkt. #70 in 12-cr-100-wmc; dkt. #3
in 15-cv-782- wmc; dkt. #6 in
requests that a new judge be appointed for all of his cases
on the ground that this court has “repeatedly violated
[his] due process rights.” Raney's motion will be
denied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal is necessary in a
number of circumstances, including when a judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or when he or
she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. As
the court already explained to Raney in its June 11, 2015,
order denying his request for recusal, Raney has identified
no valid grounds for recusal:
This court's impartiality cannot reasonably be
questioned, and the court holds no personal bias or prejudice
against Raney. The court's order revoking Raney's
supervised release was the direct result of Raney's
repeated misbehavior, recommendations of his supervising
probation officer, and the court's interest in holding
defendant accountable, protecting the community and providing
deterrence. Following admission of evidence, as well as a
lengthy exchange with counsel for both sides, the court also
gave Raney the opportunity to address the court before
rendering its decision, which he did. (Tr. of 10/8/14
Judicial Review, Dkt. #31, at 85-85.)
Clear and convincing evidence supports the court's
conclusion that on multiple occasions Raney violated a
fundamental condition of the terms of his supervised release,
which was to provide truthful information to his supervising
probation officer. Moreover, in imposing a sentence for the
violations, the court did not exceed its discretion, arriving
at a sentence near the middle of the guideline range. Nothing
in the record, nor ...