Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-04006/USCOURTS-ca3-15-04006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Lee Gordon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

DLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-4006

___________

MICHAEL LEE GORDON,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. No. 3-15-cv-00769)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon

____________________________________

Submitted By the Clerk for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

April 7, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 9, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-4006 Document: 003112287595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2016
2

Michael Lee Gordon appeals from the District Court’s orders dismissing his 

habeas petition, which he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and denying his motions for 

reconsideration. We will affirm.

I.

Gordon is a federal prisoner serving a 137-year prison sentence imposed by the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. That court imposed the 

sentence in 1999 following Gordon’s conviction on seven counts of Hobbs Act robbery 

and seven related counts of using or carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. 

Gordon, 238 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2000) (Table). Since then, Gordon has unsuccessfully 

filed multiple motions with his sentencing court for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 and multiple applications with the Sixth Circuit for leave to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. 

Most recently, Gordon filed an application seeking leave to raise a claim that his 

conviction on six of the seven § 924(e) counts was rendered invalid by Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). The Sixth Circuit denied it because it concluded (as have 

we, see United States v. Reyes, 755 F.3d 210, 212-13 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. 

Ct. 695 (2014)), that Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review. (6th Cir. 

No. 13-4284, Sept. 17, 2014.) 

Gordon later filed the § 2241 habeas petition at issue here while incarcerated 

within this Circuit. He again raised his claim under Alleyne and argued that he could 

Case: 15-4006 Document: 003112287595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2016
3

resort to § 2241, rather than § 2255, under the theory that we recognized in In re 

Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997). In that case, we held that a federal prisoner 

could proceed under §2241 because his § 2255 remedy was “inadequate or ineffective.” 

Id. at 251. We did so because the prisoner had no prior opportunity to raise a substantive

Supreme Court decision that potentially decriminalized his conduct of conviction and 

because § 2255 does not provide a mechanism for raising non-constitutional decisions in 

a second § 2255 motion. See id. 

Gordon argued that he qualifies for this exception because Alleyne renders him 

“innocent” of the sentences he is serving on six of his seven § 924(e) counts and because 

Alleyne’s non-retroactivity means that he cannot satisfy the gatekeeping requirements for 

raising this claim in a successive § 2255 motion. The District Court rejected Gordon’s 

arguments and dismissed his petition. Gordon filed two motions for reconsideration, 

which the District Court denied. Gordon now appeals.1

II.

We will affirm. Gordon previously filed a § 2241 petition, and we affirmed its 

dismissal. See Gordon v. United States, 209 F. App’x 173 (3d Cir. 2006). As we 

explained, federal prisoners generally may collaterally challenge their convictions and 

sentences only under § 2255. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 

 

1 Federal prisoners do not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of a § 

2241 petition. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). We thus have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Case: 15-4006 Document: 003112287595 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/09/2016
4

2002). The exception that we recognized in Dorsainvil does not apply to Gordon’s claim 

because Alleyne does not decriminalize his conduct of conviction (or any other). Alleyne

holds that “‘any facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal 

defendant is exposed are elements of the crime’ and must be found [by the jury] beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Reyes, 755 F.3d at 212 (quoting Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160). Thus, 

Alleyne merely announced a new procedural rule of constitutional law. See id. Section 

2255 provides a mechanism for raising claims based on new rules of constitutional law, 

provided that the United States Supreme Court has made them retroactively applicable on 

collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).

Gordon nevertheless argues that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because 

Alleyne’s non-retroactivity means that he cannot raise it in a successive § 2255 motion. 

This argument gets Gordon nowhere because Alleyne would remain non-retroactive even 

if he could proceed under § 2241. This argument also lacks merit because, as we 

repeatedly have explained, “[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely 

because . . . the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of . . . 

§ 2255.” Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Gordon also argues that the limitations placed on successive § 2255 motions violate the 

Suspension Clause, but the Supreme Court has held that they do not. See Felker v. 

Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996); United States v. Bendolph, 409 F.3d 155, 167 n.18 (3d 

Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Case: 15-4006 Document: 003112287595 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/09/2016
5

III.

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

Case: 15-4006 Document: 003112287595 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/09/2016