Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01729/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01729-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

BLD-210 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1729

___________

HOWARD O. KIEFFER,

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN ALLENWOOD LSCI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1-14-cv-01547)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 21, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 28, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Howard O. Kieffer appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing a 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
2

habeas petition in which he purported to challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 the execution 

of one of his federal sentences. We will affirm.

I.

Kieffer has been convicted in federal courts in both North Dakota and Colorado of 

charges arising from his unlicensed operation of a “nationwide criminal law practice.” 

United States v. Kieffer, 681 F.3d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 2012). The North Dakota 

District Court sentenced Kieffer to 51 months of imprisonment on August 14, 2009, and 

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. See id. (citing United States v. Kieffer, 

621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010)). At issue in this case is Kieffer’s subsequent Colorado 

sentence. On August 16, 2010, the Colorado District Court sentenced Kieffer to a term of 

57 months in prison consecutive to his North Dakota sentence. The Tenth Circuit Court 

of Appeals affirmed Kieffer’s convictions but remanded for resentencing because, inter 

alia, the Colorado District Court erred in making its sentence consecutive. See id. at 

1167-68, 1172. 

On remand, and on August 22, 2013, the Colorado District Court orally 

resentenced Kieffer to a term of 99 months in prison concurrent to his 51-month North 

Dakota sentence and stated that the purpose of the sentence was to ensure that Kieffer 

serve an additional 48 months in prison. See United States v. Kieffer, 596 F. App’x 653, 

657 (10th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. — (U.S. May 7, 2015) (No. 14-

9670). The Colorado District Court later attempted to memorialize its oral sentence in a 

First Amended Judgment, in which it stated that it “adjusted the ninety-nine (99) months 

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
3

by subtracting the fifty-one (51) months already served in [North Dakota], for a 

remaining sentence of forty-eight (48) months[.]” Id. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) 

interpreted the First Amended Judgment as imposing only a 48-month term of 

imprisonment and began processing Kieffer for release. See id. 

Upon learning of that fact, the Colorado District Court entered a series of further 

amended judgments in an effort to clarify its intent that Kieffer serve 48 months in 

addition to his North Dakota sentence, for a total Colorado sentence of 99 months. See

id. at 657-59. Kieffer contends that the BOP calculated his release date as February 6, 

2014, on the basis of the First Amended Judgment, but then recalculated it as January 2, 

2017, after the Colorado District Court further amended its judgment.

Thereafter, and while simultaneously challenging the amended judgments on 

appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Kieffer filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the district of his 

confinement, which at that time was the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Kieffer argued 

that the BOP erred by calculating his sentence pursuant to the Colorado District Court’s 

amended judgments instead of its oral sentence of August 22, 2013, which he contended 

imposed a term of only 48 months that expired on February 6, 2014. He further argued 

that the amended judgments are invalid because they conflict with the oral sentence. See

United States v. Faulks, 201 F.3d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 2000). 

While Kieffer’s § 2241 petition remained pending, the Tenth Circuit vacated the 

Colorado District Court’s amended judgments as unauthorized and remanded for that 

court to issue still another amended judgment consistent with its oral sentence—i.e., 99 

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
4

months, minus 11 months for time served on the North Dakota sentence, for a total 

sentence of 88 months. See Kieffer, 596 F. App’x at 656, 661-62. In doing so, the Tenth 

Circuit expressly rejected the interpretation of the Colorado District Court’s oral sentence 

that Kieffer advanced in his § 2241 petition. Id. at 661. The Colorado District Court 

later issued a new judgment (D. Colo. Crim. No. 1-09-cr-00410-001, ECF No. 225), and 

Kieffer’s appeal from that judgment is pending (10th Cir. No. 15-1078).

After the Tenth Circuit issued its ruling, the District Court in this case dismissed 

Kieffer’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that it constituted an attack on 

the validity of the Colorado District Court’s amended judgments instead of a challenge to 

the BOP’s execution of his sentence. The District Court also noted that it would have 

denied Kieffer’s petition on the merits because he remains subject to imprisonment even 

under the oral sentence on which he relies. Kieffer appeals.1

II.

As the District Court properly explained, § 2241 permits challenges to the 

execution but not the validity of a federal sentence. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 

533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012). Absent circumstances not present or alleged here, challenges to 

 

1 The BOP transferred Kieffer back to a federal facility in Colorado before the District 

Court issued its ruling. That transfer did not divest the District Court (or us) of the § 

2241 jurisdiction that attached when Kieffer filed his petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 

542 U.S. 426, 441 & n.14 (2004); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 477 n.1 (3d Cir. 

1990). Kieffer does not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his § 

2241 petition, see Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 433 (3d Cir. 2012), and we thus have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. According to the BOP’s inmate locator, available at 

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
5

the validity of a sentence may be brought only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and only in the 

sentencing court. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). Thus, we agree 

that Kieffer’s petition belonged in the Colorado District Court to the extent that it 

challenged the validity of that court’s amended judgments. To that same extent, Kieffer’s 

challenge also became moot when the Tenth Circuit vacated those amended judgments. 

We acknowledge Kieffer’s argument that his petition does more than merely 

challenge the validity of the amended judgments. Kieffer argues that the terms of his oral 

sentence control and that his oral sentence expired on February 6, 2014. If Kieffer were 

correct, then he arguably would be entitled to release now regardless of the terms of any 

amended judgment. See United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703, 710 (7th Cir. 2012) 

(noting that, although the BOP generally “looks to the written judgment” in calculating a 

sentence, it ultimately is required to apply the sentence “as intended and pronounced by 

the sentencing court”) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, it may be possible to construe 

Kieffer’s petition as a challenge to the execution of his sentence that has not been mooted 

by the Tenth Circuit’s vacation of the amended judgments.

To the extent that Kieffer’s petition can be so construed, however, it is foreclosed 

by the substance of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling. The Tenth Circuit squarely rejected 

Kieffer’s argument that the Colorado District Court orally sentenced him to only 48 

months in prison because, as the Tenth Circuit explained, the Colorado District Court 

 

http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc, Kieffer is currently scheduled for release on December 

29, 2016.

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
6

unambiguously expressed its intent to sentence him to 48 month in prison in addition to

the time served on his North Dakota sentence, for a total sentence of 99 months. See

Kieffer, 596 F. App’x at 661. Thus, the Tenth Circuit remanded for entry of a new 

judgment consistent with that oral sentence, the Colorado District Court has entered a 

new judgment, and Kieffer is challenging that judgment on appeal. We express no 

opinion on the merits of that appeal but, even assuming that we had the authority to reach 

a contrary conclusion in the context of Kieffer’s § 2241 petition, we would not do so for 

the reasons explained by the Tenth Circuit.

III. 

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Kieffer’s 

motion to expedite this appeal and to adjudicate it on the District Court record is granted 

to the extent that we have resolved it on the District Court record without briefing. 

Case: 15-1729 Document: 003111975085 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/28/2015