Ramon Fabela v. Warden E. Emmerich

Fabela v. Emmerich · United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin · March 20, 2026 · No. 25-cv-664-wmc

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Ramon Fabela’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ denial of First Step Act time credits. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) unambiguously excludes prisoners sentenced for offenses involving 400 grams or more of fentanyl, and that the Bureau of Prisons’ determination was not arbitrary. The court alternatively concluded that the petition constituted an abuse of the writ because Fabela could have raised the claim in a prior habeas proceeding.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Writing for the Court
William M. Conley
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Decision date
March 20, 2026
Docket number
25-cv-664-wmc
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau of Prisons' denial of First Step Act time credits. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
Standard of review
The petition was screened under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, as applied to § 2241 proceedings.
Precedential value
unpublished district court opinion
Parties
Ramon Fabela v. Warden E. Emmerich
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpussuccessive petitionsstatutory interpretationplain meaning rulerule of lenity

Practice areas

Federal habeas corpusPost-conviction reliefStatutory interpretationFederal sentencing and prison administration

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) is ambiguous or redundant with subsection (lxviii) such that a prisoner convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi) is eligible for First Step Act time credits absent a finding that he was a leader in the offense.
  2. Whether the Bureau of Prisons arbitrarily denied Fabela First Step Act time credits.
  3. Whether Fabela's second § 2241 petition constituted an abuse of the writ because the claims could have been raised in his prior habeas proceeding.

Holdings

  1. Section 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) clearly and unambiguously excludes prisoners sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi) for offenses involving the specified quantity of fentanyl from receiving First Step Act time credits; subsection (lxviii)'s separate leadership-based exclusion does not create ambiguity or redundancy.
  2. A second § 2241 petition raising claims that could have been raised in a prior habeas proceeding may be dismissed as an abuse of the writ.

Key quotations

Section § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) clearly and unambiguously excludes prisoners like Fabela sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi) from receiving First Step Act time credits.
Because the claims raised in his pending petition could have been but were not raised in his previous proceeding, this action constitutes an abuse of the writ.

Factual background

Fabela is incarcerated at FCI-Oxford and is serving a 120-month sentence for possessing with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), with the enhanced penalty provision in § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi) applying. The Bureau of Prisons denied him First Step Act time credits because his conviction falls within an offense category excluded by 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi). Fabela argued that the exclusion in subsection (lxvi) overlaps with subsection (lxviii), which includes an additional leadership requirement, and that the rule of lenity required application of the latter provision.

Procedural history

Fabela was convicted in the Southern District of California after pleading guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. He previously filed a § 2241 petition challenging the denial of First Step Act time credits, and that petition was denied on the merits. In this second petition, he advanced a different statutory-interpretation theory; the Western District of Wisconsin rejected the theory and alternatively found the action to be an abuse of the writ.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…