Mairs v. Eischen

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Spencer Curtis Mairs,
Petitioner,
v.
B. Eischen, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-CV-3153 (ECT/EMB)
ORDER AND
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Petitioner Spencer Curtis Mairs’s Motion to Award
First Step Act Credits (Dkt. No. 1), which the Court construes as a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. That petition is
before the Court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.1
After review of the petition, this Court concludes that Mr. Mairs is not
entitled to relief. Accordingly, his habeas petition should be denied, and this
action dismissed.
1 Although Mr. Mairs’s habeas petition is not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may still be applied to his sentence.
See Rule 1(b).
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 9

2
I. Background
In 2021, Mr. Mairs was indicted in the United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota on one count of “distribut[ing] a mixture and
substance containing detectable amounts of heroin, a Schedule I controlled
substance, and fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance, the use of which
resulted in serious bodily injury,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and
(b)(1)(C). See United States v. Mairs, No. 3:21-CR-0126 (PDW), Indictment at
1 [ECF No. 2] (D.N.D. June 16, 2021).
Mr. Mairs pleaded guilty to that offense. As part of his plea agreement,
Mr. Mairs admitted: (1) he knowingly and intentionally distributed a
substance containing heroin and fentanyl, (2) the use of that substance
resulted in serious bodily injury, and (3) he was subject to a 20-year
mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(C) because his crime
resulted in serious bodily injury. See id., Plea Agreement ¶¶ 6–7 [ECF No.
26] (D.N.D. Mar. 3, 2022).
After sentencing, the court entered judgment in Mr. Mairs’s criminal
case. The judgment confirms Mr. Mairs was convicted under §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(C), and that the nature of his offense was “Distribution of Controlled
Substances Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury.” Id., Sentencing Judgment at
1 [ECF No. 43] at 1 (D.N.D. July 19, 2022).
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 9

3
II. Legal Standard
Under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), most federal prisoners can
earn time credits towards their sentence by completing recidivism-reduction
programming or productive activities while in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4).
But the FSA expressly excludes certain prisoners from earning FSA
credits. Specifically, prisoners who are “serving a sentence for a conviction”
under sixty-eight specific “provisions of law” are “ineligible to receive time
credits.” Id. § 3632(d)(4)(D). One of those provisions is 18 U.S.C.
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lviii), which deems any prisoner convicted of a controlled-
substance offense under § 841(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C) “for which death or serious
bodily injury resulted from the use of such substance” ineligible to earn FSA
credits.
III. Analysis
The BOP previously concluded Mr. Mairs is ineligible to receive FSA
time credits because he was convicted under § 841(b)(1)(C). (See Dkt. No. 1-
1.) After that, Mr. Mairs filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
arguing the BOP misapplied the FSA by deeming him ineligible for time
credits. He offers three reasons why he is eligible for FSA time credits, none
of which are persuasive.
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 9

4
First, Mr. Mairs argues § 841(b)(1)(C)’s “‘serious bodily injury
enhancement’ wasn’t applied” to his conviction because the court did not have
access to a toxicology report proving that the resulting injury was truly
“serious” within the meaning of the statute. (Dkt. 1 at 7.)2 But the absence of
a toxicology report is irrelevant because Mr. Mairs knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily admitted that serious bodily injury resulted from his offense.
By entering into a plea agreement and admitting his guilt, Mr. Mairs waived
his right to require the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt through the presentation of evidence at trial. See Mairs, Plea
Agreement ¶ 8. He also waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his
conviction or sentence, including his right “to argue that the admitted
conduct does not fall within the scope of the statute(s).” See id. ¶ 21.
Accordingly, Mr. Mairs cannot now litigate the factual question of whether
his conduct did, in fact, result in “serious bodily injury” under § 841(b)(1)(C).3
Second, Mr. Mairs argues “the BOP should not be allowed to second-
guess the Court and deny him FTCs as if he had been charged with” an
enhancement under § 841(b)(1)(C). (Dkt. 1 at 10.) He cites several cases in
support of this proposition, including Lallave v. Martinez, 635 F. Supp.
2 Citations to Mr. Mairs’s briefing reference the CM/ECF pagination.
3 In any event, the instant petition is not the appropriate procedural vehicle
for Mr. Mairs to raise such a challenge. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 9

5
3d 173 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) and Valladares v. Ray, 130 F.4th 74 (4th Cir. 2025).
In those cases, the BOP made a factual determination that the prisoner’s
offenses ultimately resulted in serious bodily injury, even though neither
prisoner had been convicted of distribution of a controlled substance resulting
in serious bodily injury. Both the Lallave and Valladares courts rejected this
approach and concluded that a prisoner’s eligibility for time credits under
§ 3632(d)(4)(D) depends on the specific offense for which he was convicted,
not upon what factual information the BOP might discover outside the
charging documents. See Valladares, 130 F.4th at 83 (“[I]ineligibility under
(lviii) is limited only to those convicted of the death-resulting enhancement
element. BOP may not look to other uncharged facts.”); Lallave, 635 F. Supp.
at 188 (“[S]ection 3632(d)(4)(D)(lviii) should not be broadly interpreted to
refer to conduct related to a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) and
should instead be limited to the conviction itself.”).
Unlike the petitioners in Lallave and Valladares, Mr. Mairs was
charged with and pleaded guilty to distributing a controlled substance that
resulted in serious bodily injury. Mr. Mairs is asking the BOP to overlook the
indictment, plea agreement, and judgment, and to instead conduct a factual
investigation into whether his conduct in fact resulted in serious bodily
injury. But this independent factual excursion is precisely what the Lallave
and Valladares courts prohibited the BOP from doing, and the Court will not
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 9

6
do so here. What matters for purposes of § 3632(d)(4)(D) are the charging
documents. See Plain v. Eischen, 25-CV-3154 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 2884999,
at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2025) (upholding denial of similar § 2241 petition
because “the criminal case documents [] make perfectly clear that [petitioner]
was convicted of and sentenced for a [disqualifying] violation”).
Mr. Mairs relies on another case pending within this district for a
similar proposition, arguing that both men are entitled to FSA credits. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 13 (citing Stevenson v. Eischen, Case No. 25-cv-1308-ECT/EMB).)
The undersigned has reviewed the indictment, jury instructions, verdict, and
judgment in Mr. Stevenson’s underlying criminal case. See United States v.
Stevenson, Case No. 2:18-cr-01023-CJW-MAR-1 [ECF Nos. 2, 70, 77, 116]
(N.D. Iowa). Unlike here, nothing in those documents suggests Mr.
Stevenson was specifically charged with or convicted of a disqualifying
offense, regardless of the factual underpinnings of his case. Accordingly, Mr.
Stevenson’s case does nothing to move the needle on Mr. Mairs’s eligibility.
Third, Mr. Mairs points out that the serious-bodily-injury enhancement
of § 841(b)(1)(C) carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years’
imprisonment, but he was sentenced to only a 10-year term of imprisonment
for his offense. Therefore, Mr. Mairs argues, the serious-bodily-injury
enhancement could not have applied to his case. But “mandatory” minimums
are often subject to exceptions that permit a sentencing court to impose a
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 9

7
term of imprisonment below the nominal minimum. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f); 18 U.S.C. § 994(n). This Court has confirmed from the records in
the underlying criminal case that such an exception was applied at the time
of Mr. Mairs’s sentencing. As set forth in the indictment, the plea agreement,
and the sentencing judgment, the serious-bodily-injury enhancement applied
in Mr. Mairs’s case.
Because Mr. Mairs is plainly barred from earning and applying FSA
time credits by § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lviii), his habeas petition should be denied,
and this case should be dismissed.
As a final matter, Mr. Mairs filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt.
No. 7.) District courts may appoint counsel to a prisoner seeking habeas
relief if the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see
also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). If a claim is
“frivolous or clearly without merit,” however, “the district court should
dismiss the case on the merits without appointing counsel.” Abdullah v.
Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). And even where a petition contains
nonfrivolous claims, the court should only appoint counsel after considering
“the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the
petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other
relevant factors.” Id.
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 9

8
Because Mr. Mairs’s claims lack merit, as detailed above, the Court
declines to appoint counsel. In any event, the factors set out in Abdullah
weigh against the appointment of counsel. This case is neither factually nor
legally complex. And Mr. Mairs was clearly able to investigate and present
his claim: his 18-page petition cites appropriate caselaw and statutes and
includes relevant attachments from the BOP. The interests of justice do not
require the appointment of counsel, so the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt.
No. 7) is DENIED.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Spencer
Curtis Mairs (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED.
2. This matter be DISMISSED.
ORDER
Furthermore, based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records,
and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED.
Dated: December s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 9

9
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations
within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a
copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses
must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-03153-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 12/29/25 Page 9 of 9