BLD

- 268 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 5

- 4090

___________ ORILLION CRADDOCK ,

Appellant

v. WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States Dis trict Court for the Middle D istrict of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 3:15

- cv
- 02168 ) District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 26, 2016 Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : June 7, 2016 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Orillion Craddock, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 d oes not2

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will summarily
affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
I. Following a 200 8 trial , a federal jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia
found Craddock guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) , and one count of possession of an unregistered sawed

- off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) . He received a sentence of 120 mo nths in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Craddock , 364 F. App’x 842 ( 4 th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

. Craddock subsequently sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without success. See
United States v. Cr addock , 583 F. App’x 235 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (denying a certificate of appealability). In 2015, Craddock filed this habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania , raising
claims tha t challenged his federal conviction. H e contend ed , in part, that his conviction
should be overturned because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Craddock ’s

c laims could be raised only, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. This appeal followed.
II.

constitute binding precedent.3

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and w e exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions

. S ee Cradle v. United States ex rel.
Miner , 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

. We agree with the District Court that Craddock ’s § 2241 petition was not viable. He challenged the validity of his conviction, and “[m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by whi ch federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States , 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Although a petitioner may challenge a conviction pursuant § 2241 if a § 22 55 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective “only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a
ful l hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Cradle , 290 F.3d at 538. This exception applies only in rare circumstances.
In In re Dorsainvil , 119 F.3d 245, 251

- 52 (3d Cir. 1997), we recognized that the exception cou ld apply where an intervening change in the law decriminalized the conduct for which the petitioner had been convicted, but Craddock cannot avail himself of this exception. Here, the conduct underlying his conviction is still a crime

. N or does
Craddock c ite anything else that might be considered an extraordinary circumstance justifying the use of § 2241. See Cradle , 290 F.3d at 539. Instead, his claims regard
routine issues that could have been raised under § 2255. As we have made clear , a4

petitioner m ay not use § 2241 to evade the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255.
See Cradle , 290 F.3d at 539.
III. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.