Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02646/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02646-0/pdf.json

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

---

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 22, 2016*

Decided February 24, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

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.

Order

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.

 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Case: 15-2646 Document: 15 Filed: 02/24/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-2646 Page 2

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 the 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 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.

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: 15 Filed: 02/24/2016 Pages: 2