Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02646/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02646-1/pdf.json

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

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-2646

ABDUWALI ABDUKHADIR MUSE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden, FCI Terre Haute,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:15-cv-00213-JMS-DKL — Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 22, 2016 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 24, 2016*

____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Abduwali Muse pleaded 

guilty to piracy, 18 U.S.C. §2280, among other crimes, for his 

role in boarding the MV Maersk Alabama in 2009 in international waters off the coast of Somalia and taking its captain 

hostage.

 

* The appeal was decided by non-precedential order on February 24, 

2016. The court reissued the decision as an opinion on March 4, 2016.

Case: 15-2646 Document: 17 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pages: 3
2 No. 15-2646

Muse initially told federal agents that he was 16 at the 

time of his capture, which created a potential for prosecution 

under the special rules applicable to juveniles. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 5031–42. The day before a hearing set to determine his 

age, Muse told an FBI agent that he was between 18 and 19. 

At the hearing Muse refused to testify. Magistrate Judge 

Peck, of the Southern District of New York, concluded that 

Muse was at least 18 when the crime occurred, which led to 

his prosecution as an adult. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 405 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement 

contains a clause promising “not to seek to withdraw his 

guilty plea or file a direct appeal or any kind of collateral attack challenging his guilty plea or conviction based on his 

age either at the time of the charged conduct or at the time of 

the guilty plea.”

Notwithstanding the waiver, Muse filed a proceeding 

under 28 U.S.C. §2255 asking the Southern District of New 

York to set aside his conviction on the grounds that a magistrate judge lacked authority to decide whether he was an 

adult in 2009 and that his lawyer furnished ineffective assistance by not pursuing that question vigorously. Chief District Judge Preska denied that motion, relying on the waiver 

in the plea agreement. Muse appealed, but the Second Circuit declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Turning 

to the Southern District of Indiana, where he is imprisoned, 

Muse filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. §2241. Again he lost, this time because the district 

court concluded that §2255(e) applies.

Section 2255(e) provides: “An application for a writ of 

habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to 

apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not 

Case: 15-2646 Document: 17 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-2646 3

be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to 

apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced 

him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also 

appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Webster v. Daniels, 

784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) (en banc), discusses when §2255 

as a whole is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality 

of” federal detention. The district court properly concluded 

that Muse has not identified any deficiency or inadequacy in 

§2255. The reason he could not contest the magistrate judge’s 

decision has nothing to do with §2255. It is, instead, the consequence of his own decision to waive any entitlement to 

raise the age issue on collateral attack. That waiver would 

apply equally in a proceeding under §2241, had not §2255(e) 

taken precedence, for §2241 is a form of collateral attack.

Muse’s brief in this court ignores his waiver and §2255(e) 

alike. Instead he presents an argument about the extent to 

which 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) permits magistrate judges to 

resolve contests about criminal defendants’ ages. The brief 

thus gives us no reason to question the district court’s decision.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-2646 Document: 17 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pages: 3