2009 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 3-23-2009 

# K ell y P ie rre v . D a vid Ebb e r t 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 . 08-3936

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ke lly P ie rr e v

. D a vid Eb be r t " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1708. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1708AL D- 1 1 7 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. 08- 3936

___________ KELLY PI ERRE, A ppel l ant v . DAVI D E BB E RT , WARDE N; THER ESA M CK EEVER, F. B. I . AG ENT; M IC H A E L K E E L Y , F .B .I. A G E N T ; D IA N E G U J A R T I, A S S IS T . U .S .A .; W IL L IA M S T E M L L M A C H , A .U .S .A ; RI CH A RD D . O W EN S; CHRI S TOP HER J . CLARK

_____________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 01370 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uant to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February26, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2009 )

_______ OP I NI ON

_________P E R C UR I AM

K e llyP ier re , an in m a te c o n f in e d in th e C lin to n C o u n tyC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili tyin M cEl hat t an, Penns y l vani a, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . T h e A p p ell ee s h av e f il ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary aff i r m ance . B eca us e thi s appea l does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l gr antt he m o tio n . S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . P ie rr e p le a d e d g u ilty to c h a rg e s o f c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it m a il f ra u d a n d w ir e f

ra u d . In Ju ly2 0 0 6 , h e w as se n tenc ed b ythe U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k t o for t y - s i x m onths of i ncar cer at i on. T he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s aff

i r m ed the j udgm enton J ul y17, 2008. O n J ul y21, 2008, Pi err e fi l ed a pe t i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof P en n sy lvan ia, the d istri ct w h ere h e w as (a n d rem ains ) co n fin ed . In h is pe ti ti o n , P ierre al l eged thatt he s ent enci ng cour tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o ent erj udgm ent agai ns thi m ; t he age nt s i nves t i gat i ng hi s cas e vi ol at ed due pr oces s , equal pr ot ect i on and t he Four t h A m endment ; and thathe comm i t t ed no cr i m e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed P ier re ’s p e tit io n . P ier re tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill gr antA ppel l ee’ s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons , and r evi ew i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . See Lam ber tv. B l ackw el l , 134 F. 3d 506, 512 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . U ponre v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d th e u n d e rl y in g 2 8 U .S .C . §

2 2 4 1 p e titio n th ro u g h w h ic h P ie rr e s o u g h t to c h a lle n g e h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . A p ri s o n e r i n c u s to d ym a yc h a lle n g e h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e in a 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255 pr ocee di ng befor e the s ent enci ng court . See U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l er , 197 F. 3d 644, 6 4 8 n . 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) . An a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2241 s hal l notbe ent er t ai ned i f i tappea r s thatthe appl i canthas fai l ed t o appl yforr el i ef in th e se n ten c in g c o u rt, u n les s it a p p e a rs th a t th e re m e d yis “ in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e to t es tt he l egal i t yof hi s det ent i on. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2255( e) ; C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es , 290 F. 3d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3 d . C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). A m o tio n p u rsu a n t to § 2 2 5 5 is “ in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e ” o n ly w hen s om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur es w oul d pr eventthe pr i s onerfr om r ece i vi ng adequa t e adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m s . I d. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, the cl ai m s pr es ent ed i n Pi err e’ s habea s pet i t i on f a ll w ith in th e p u rv iew o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , b e c a u se P ier re so u g h t to c h a llen g e h is s ent ence and convi ct i on. I n addi t i on, Pi err e di d notas s erti n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on thatr el i ef u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 w a s in e f

f e c tiv e o r in a d e q u a te. B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i s nott he s ent enci ng courtand Pi err e has nots how n t hatr el i ef under§ 2255 w oul d be i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve, the C our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thathe coul d nots eek r el i ef unde r§ 2241. See C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538. W e G R A N T the G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n an d w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of P ierre’s § 2241 pet i t i on.