2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-25-2010 

# W all a ce R ice v . B led so e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3831

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W all a c e R ic e v . B le d s oe " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2021. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/20211

HLD- 0 5 8 ( De c e mb e r 2 0 0 9 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3831

___________ W ALLA CE RI CE, A ppel l ant vs. B. A. BL E DS OE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 02166) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d IO P . 1 0 .6

Subm i t t ed D ece m ber30, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary25, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

T h is i s an ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of W all ac e R ice’s peti t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus pursuant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 1. W e w i l l dis m i ss2

p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( I) .

In 1 9 8 3 , a jurysitti n g in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k convi ct ed R i ce of part i ci pat i ng i n a C ont i nui ng C r i m i nal E nt erpr i s e, pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i verher oi n, cons pi r acy , and vi ol at i ons of the R acke t eer In f lu e n c e a n d C o rru p t O rg a n iza tio n s A c t. T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d h im to life in p ri so n w ith o u t paro le. T h e S ec o n d C ir cu itaf firm ed h is co n v ict ion an d the d istri ct co u rt deni ed hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255. See U ni t ed St at es v. T ho m as, 75 7 F . 2d 13 59 (2d C i r. 19 85 ) ( affirm i ng con vict i on ); R i ce v. U nit ed S t at es, 118 F. Supp. 2d 451 ( S. D . N . Y . 2000) ( deny i ng § 2255 m ot i on) . I n 2002, R i ce f i l ed a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a ttem p tin g to c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e p e tit io n a n d w e a f f irm e d . S e e R ice v . D o d rill, 145 F. A pp’ x 729 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( percur i am) ( unpubl i s hed) . I n J anuary , 2006 R i ce f i l ed a s e c o n d m o tio n to v a c a te in th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk w h ic h th e c o u rt d e n ie d . I n D ece m ber2008, R i ce onc e aga i n fi l ed a § 2241 pe t i t i on forw r i tof habea s corpus i n t he M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. R i ce a l l eged thatthe j ury ’ s fi ndi ng of gui l tw as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on i nas m uch as the i s s ue of the quant i t yof d ru g in h is p o ss e ss io n w a s n o t su b m itt e d to th e ju rya n d p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t , b u tw a s i n s t e a d d e t e r m i n e d b y th e j u d g e a ts e n t e n c i n g a n d p r o v e n o n l y b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed R i ce’ s pet i t i on forl ack of3

ju ri s d ic tio n . R ic e f

ile d a m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o d e n ie d . R ic e th e n f

ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l c h a lle n g in g th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons and appl ya cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d t o i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs . See C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . U pon r evi ew , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l.

A § 2255 m ot i on i s the pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch a f eder al pr i s onercan chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U . S. 333, 343 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A f

e d e r a l p r i s o n e rm a y p r o c e e d u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 o n l y i f th e r e m e d y p r o v i d e d b y § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ; In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve onl yw her e the pet i t i onerdemonstr at es thats om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e w oul d pr eventa § 2255 pr ocee di ng fr om aff or di ng hi m a ful l hear i ng and adj udi cat i on of hi s w r ongful det ent i on cl ai m . ” C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538.

H er e, as the D i s tr i ctC our thel d, R i ce ha s notes t abl i s hed thata § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof hi s det ent i on. R i ce a r gues that the new s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on s etfor th i n U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez, 420 F. 3d 111 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), en tit les h im to h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief. R ice a c k n o w led g e s th a t th is la tes t cla im does notm eetthe gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255m o tio n . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 (h ). W e h a v e sp e c if ica llyre jec ted th e a rg u m e n t th a t a § 2255 m ot i on i s “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” s i m pl ybeca us e a pe t i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eet the s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . R i ce doe s notoffe rany otherar gum ent s addr es s i ng w hy§ 2255 w oul d be i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof hi s det ent i on. Fur ther , R i ce i s notal l egi ng, as the pet i t i oneri n D or s ai nvi l di d, thata s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on has r ender ed the cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed not cr i m i nal . A ccor di ngl y , a § 2241 pet i t i on i s notthe pr operavenue forR i ce t o chal l enge hi s s ent ence . I d. at120- 21 ( change i n s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on aff ect i ng onl ys ent enci ng d o e s n o t p e rm it a p e titio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 ).

In su m , b e c a u se R ice ’s a p p e a l lac k s a rg u a b le le g a l m e rit, w e w ill d ism iss it p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(I ).

4