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 10-12-2010 

# J o seph D iF i li pp o v

. T . R . S nie zek P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 10-2301

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J os e p h DiF i l ippo v

. T . R . S niez e k " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 448. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/448CL D- 30 2 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

___________ No. 10- 2301

___________ J OS EP H D I FI LI PP O, Appe l l ant

v. T. R. SN I EZ EK

____________________________________ On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 10- c v- 00406) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble J am es M. Mu nley

____________________________________ Subm i tt e d for

Pos s i bl e Di s m i s s a l Pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B) or S u mm ary A ctio nP u rsu an t to T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Se pt e m be r 30, 2010 B ef o re: B A R RY , F IS H E R

an dG R E E N A WA Y , JR ., C ircu it Ju d g es. ( Fi l e d: Oc t obe r

12, 2010 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PER CURI AM. J os e ph Di Fi l i ppo a

ppe a l s the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s or de r

di s m i s s i ng hi s habe a s c or pus p e t i t i o nf i l e du n d e r

2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e w i l l a f f i rm.2

I n 2005, Di Fi l i ppo e nt e r e d agui l ty pl e ai n the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia to o n e co u n t o f d istrib u tio nan dp o ssessio nw ith in ten t to di s tr i but e i n e xc e s s of 50 gr am s of c oc a i ne ba s e . Pr i or t o s e nt e nc i ng, the Pr obat i on O f f ice d eterm in edth at D iF ilip p o is a career o f f en d er du e inp art to a f

in d in g th at h is prior c on vict ion f

or es ca pe consti tute s a

cr im e of v iole nce. As a c ar ee r off ender, DiFili pp o’s guideli nes r ange was dete rm ined un der U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1(b), andhe faced 26 2 to 3 27 m on ths i n p ri son. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt agre ed that

DiFili pp o is a

care er offe nde r , gr ant e d adownwar d a djus tm e nt for s ubs t ant i a l a s s i s t anc e , and i m pos e d a sen ten ce o f

1 2 0 m o n th s inp riso n , w h ich ref lectedth e statu to ry

m in im u m sen ten ce. D iF ilip p o d idn o t ap p eal. In2 0 0 8 , h e f

ileda m o tio nu n d er 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) seek in g a redu ctio nin sen ten ce inlig h t o f

th e S en ten cin g C o mm issio n ’s retro activ ely ap p licab le am en dm en ts l owe r i ng the ba s e offe ns e l e ve l for c r a c k c oc a i ne offe ns e s unde r § 2D1. 1( c ) . The D istrict C o u rt d en iedth e § 3 5 8 2 m o tio n , an dth is C o u rt af f irm ed . We ex p lain edth at, beca use DiFil ippo ’s base of

fense l evel as a c ar ee r off ender was det er

m ined un der § 4 B1 .1(b) andwas higher t han the of

fense l evel ca lc ulat ed un der § 2D 1.1(c) , the high er l e ve l a ppl i e d. Thus , be c aus e the c r a c k c oc a i ne am e ndm e nt s di d not a ffe c t the s e nt e nc i ng r ange , § 3582( c ) ( 2) di d not author i z e ar e duc t i on for Di Fi l i ppo. Se e C. A. No. 08- 3798 (not prec edenti al op inion f il ed July 22 , 200 9).3

In February

20 10 , DiFil ippo file d a § 2 24 1 h abea s pet it ion in the Midd le Distri ct of Penn sylvania , his dist

ri ct of incarc er at ion. He ar gu ed that the s ente ncing cou rt im prop er ly tr eate d h im

as a c ar ee r off

ender beca

use his es ca

pe conv ic ti on can n o lon ger be c ons i de r e d ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e i n l i ght of Cham be r s v. Uni t e d St at e s , 129 S. Ct . 687, 69 1-92 (200 9) (holding that fail ure t o report i s s epar at e c ri m e from es ca pe, andthat be c aus e fa i l ur e t o r e port

doe s not i nvol ve c onduc t

that pr e s e nt s as e r i ous pot e nt i a l r i s k of ph y si ca l i nj ury

to another, it

is no t a violent fel on y

un der the Arm ed Care er Crim inal Act) . DiFil ippo al so re li ed up on Un it ed Stat es v. Ho pk ins, 57 7 F .3d 5 07 (3d C ir . 200 9), w h ere w e n o tedth at th e crackco cain e am en dm en ts “w o u ldau th o rize [ d ef en d an t] to f

ile a m o tio np u rsu an t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c) f o r a redu ctio no f

th e sen ten ce h e is cu rren tly serv in g if h e h as n o t b eenp ro p erly sen ten cedas a career o f

f en d er.” Id . at 5 0 9 . B ecau se DiFili pp o b el ie ves that his es ca pe conv ic ti on can n o lon ger s up po rt the c ar ee r off

ender de t e rm i nat i on, he ar gue d that he i s now e nt i t l e d t o as e nt e nc e r e duc t i on unde r the am en d edcrackco cain e g u id elin es –th e sam e redu ctio nth at h e so u g h t u n su ccessf u lly thr ough hi s e ar l i e r

§ 3582( c ) m ot i on. A Ma gi s tr at e Judge r e c omm e nde d s umm ary di s m i s s a l of the § 2241 pe t i t i on for lacko f j u risd ictio n , co n clu d in g th at D iF ilip p o ’s reco u rse is to seekp erm issio nf ro m th is C o u rt to f ile “seco n do r su ccessiv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n ” b asedo nC h am b ers an dH o p k in s. Th e Magis tr at e Jud ge fo un d that § 22 55 prov ides an avai la ble r em edy

fo r DiFil ippo ’s cl ai m . The Magistrate Judg e a pp ears to have as sum ed that DiFili pp o’s pri or m otion f or a4

redu ctio ninsen ten ce w as f iledu n d er § 2 2 5 5 , an dth u s co n clu d edth at D iF ilip p o m u st s e e k pe rm i s s i on unde r

28 U. S. C. § 2244 t o fi l e as e c ond or s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. The Di s tr i c t

Court c onduc t e d ade novo r e vi e w of the Re port and R eco mm en d atio ninlig h t o f D iF ilip p o ’s o b

j ectio n s. It ag reedth at D iF ilip p o ’s claim can n o t b e raisedu n d er § 2 2 4 1 b ecau se h e h as n o t sh o w nth at th e rem edy u n d er § 2 2 5 5 is inadequate or ineffecti ve. Unlike the Magistrate Judg e, ho wever, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt not e d that

Di Fi l i ppo’ s pr i or

pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ng wa s fi l e d unde r § 3582( c ) , not un der § 22 55 , andas such DiFili pp o d oes not need to se ek perm is si on from this Co urt be for e pr oc e e di ng wi th hi s c l a i m unde r § 2255. The Di s tr i c t

Court thus di s m i s s e d the § 2241 pe t i t i on for

want of jur i s di c t i on and di r e c t e d Di Fi l i ppo t o s e e k r e l i e f i n a pr oc e e di ng unde r

§ 2255. D iF ilip p o tim ely

f iledth is ap p eal f

ro m th e o rd er d ism issin g h is § 2 2 4 1 p etitio n . In additi on , a s r efle ct ed in the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s public ly avai la ble docket, DiFili pp o f

il ed a§ 2 2 5 5 mo t i o na f

t e r th e d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n . S e e M . D . P a . C r i m. No. 05- c r - 00071. The s e nt e nc i ng c ourt or de r e d s e rvi c e of the § 2255 m ot i on, and the gove rnm e nt

ha s fi l e d abr i e f i n oppos i t i on t o the m ot i on on the m e r i t s . Pr oc e e di ngs on th e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio nrem ainp en d in g b ef o re th e sen ten cin g co u rt. W e have a

ppe l l at e jur i s di c t i on unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291 t o r e vi e w the di s m i s s a l of DiFili pp o’s § 22 41 peti ti on . “ We exer ci se plenar y re view ov er

the dis tr ic t c ou rt ’s le gal5

c onc l us i ons and a

ppl y ac l e ar l y e rr one ous s t andar d t o i t s fa c t ua l fi ndi ngs . ” Cr a dl e v. Un it ed Stat es , 290 F.3d53 6, 53 8 (3dCir. 20 02 ) ( per c uriam ). Di Fi l i ppo ar gue s on a

ppe a l that the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng hi s § 2241 pe t i t i on i ns ofar

a s i t fa i l e d t o “ c ons tr

ue hi s pe t i t i on . . . a s a§ 2255 m ot i on, [onc e ] the C o u rt d eterm in edh is claim s w ere th o se th at sh o u ldb e b ro u g h t u n d er § 2 2 5 5 .” R esp o n se r e : Summ ary

Ac t i on at 4. As m e nt i one d, Di Fi l i ppo fi l e d am ot i on unde r § 2255 fol l owi ng the di s m i s s a l of hi s § 2241 pe t i t i on, and hi s § 2255 m ot i on i s now pe ndi ng be for e the s e nt e nc i ng c ourt . W e ne e d not c ons i de r , the r e for e , whe the r the § 2241 peti ti on shou ld have been re- char ac te ri ze d as a § 2 25 5 m otion u nd er

the c ir cum st ance s pr e s e nt e d he r e , a s the s e nt e nc i ng c ourt pr e s e nt l y ha s be for e i t

a§ 2255 m ot i on r a i s i ng the s am e c l a i m

that Di Fi l i ppo s ought

t o r a i s e i n thi s § 2241 pr oc e e di ng. M o reo v er, w e co n clu d e th at th e D istrict C o u rt d idn o t err ind irectin g D iF ilip p o to s e e k r e l i e f unde r

§ 2255. A m ot i on unde r § 2255 i s the pr e s um

pt i ve m e ans thr ough whi c h afe de r a l pr i s one r

m us t r a i s e apos t - c onvi c t i on c ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc e . Oke r e ke v. Uni t e d St at e s , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) . Mor e s pe c i fi c a l l y , ahabe a s c or pus pe t i t i on fi l e d by

afe de r a l pr i s one r

“ s ha l l not

be e nt e rt a i ne d i f i t

a ppe ar s that

the a ppl i c ant h as f ailedto ap p ly

f o r relief , b y m o tio n , to th e co u rt w h ich sen ten cedh im . . . u n less it a l s o a ppe ar s that

the r e m e dy

by m ot i on i s i na de quat e or

i ne ffe c t i ve t o t e s t

the l e ga l i ty

of h is d eten tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 (e). “A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio nis in ad equ ate o r in ef f ectiv e o n ly w h ere th e p etitio n er d em o n strates th at so m e lim itatio no f sco p e o r p ro cedu re w o u ld6

p rev en t a § 2 2 5 5 p ro ceed in g f ro m af f o rd in g h im

a f u ll h earin g an dad

j u d icatio no f

h is wr ongful de t e nt i on c l a i m . ” Cr a dl e , 290 F. 3d at 538. D iF ilip p o h as n o t m ad e th is sh o w in g . In d eed , w e d o n o t u n d erstan dh im to co n ten do nth is ap p eal th at § 2 2 5 5 p ro v id es anin ad equ ate o r in ef f ectiv e rem edy

f o r h is claim ch allen g in g th e career o f f en d er d eterm in atio n . A s n o ted , h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio nis pres entl y un der c on si derati on befo re the s ente ncing cou rt , andther e i s no ind ic at ion that Di Fi l i ppo wi l l not

r e c e i ve aful l and fa i r

a djudi c at i on i n that

pr oc e e di ng. On thi s r e c or d, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

prop er ly dism is se d the § 2 24 1 p et it ion in f avor of a procee ding un der § 2 25 5. See App li cati on of Galante, 43 7 F .2d 1 16 4, 11 65 (3d C ir . 197 1) (per curi am). Fo r these re as on s, we conclude that t his a pp ea l pre se nts “ no substantia l quest ion.” 3dCir. I. O.P. 10 .6. Acc ording ly , we wil l s umm ar il y affirm the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s j u d g m en t.