2006 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 4-13-2006 

# Re a ves v . U SA 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 . 05-5040

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_2006

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 2006 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 " Re a ve s v . U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1268. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1268AP S - 1 7 3 UNRE P ORTE D - 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 . 05- 5040

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RE G I N A LD RE A V ES,

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 05033) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a rv in K a tz

__________________________ S u b m itte d 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 I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ar ch 23, 2006 BEFORE: SLOV I TER, M c KEE an d FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2006)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM R eg inald R ea v es w as c o n v ict ed o f v ariou s d rug -relat ed crim es f o ll o w ing a jury t r i a l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c tC o u r tf o rth e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a . We aff i r m ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 13 F. 3d 711 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . Si nce then R eave s has2

uns ucce s s ful l yat t acke d hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence thr ough a s er i es of col l at er al c h a llen g e s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 5 a n d 2 2 4 1 , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ), an d th e A ll W rits A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1651 ( s peci fi cal l y , the anc i entw r i t s of e rr o r c o ra m n o b is and a u d ita q u e re la ). I n 2005 R eave s fi l ed anotherat t ack on hi s s ent ence vi a a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof a u d ita q u e re la , s e e k in g re lie f p u rs u a n t to U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). R ee v es h as a p p ea led th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f h is pe ti ti o n . W e w il l sum m aril yaf firm underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, beca us e i tcl ear l yappea r s thatno s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n is p re s e n te d b yth is a p p e a l. A m ot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i s the exc l us i ve means t o chal l enge c ol l at er al l ya fe der al convi ct i on ors ent ence . T he A l l W r i t s A cti s a r es i dual s our ce of author i t yt o i s s ue w r i t s i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s onl y . Penns y l vani a B ur eau of C or r ect i on v. U . S. M ar s hal s Ser v. , 474 U . S. 34, 43 ( 1985) . I n U ni t ed St at es v. V al dezPachec o, 237 F. 3d 1077 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) , the C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui thel d, and w e agr ee, t hat“[a ] pr i s onerm aynotci r cumventval i d congr es s i onal l i m i t at i ons on col l at er al at t acks byas s er t i ng t hatt hos e veryl i m i t at i ons cr eat e a gap i n t he pos t convi ct i on rem edies t hat m ustbe fil l ed b yt he co m m on l aw w ri t s” such as a u d ita q u e re la . I d. at 1 0 8 0 . T h u s , w e h a v e h e ld th a t s e c tio n 2 2 5 5 is n o t r e n d e re d “ in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e ,” t her ebyenabl i ng a pr i s onert o r es or tt o c o ra m n o b is , bythe mer e fa ctthathe ca nnotm eet t he s t r i ngents t andar ds forauthor i zi ng the fi l i ng of a s econd ors ucce s s i ve s ect i on 2255W e not e thateven i f a u d ita q u e re la w er e otherw i s e ava i l abl e, R eave s w oul d notbe 1 abl e t o r el yon B ookerbeca us e thatdeci s i on does notappl yr etr oact i vel yt o cas es on co ll ateral rev iew . S ee L loy d v . U n it ed S tat es, 40 7 F . 3 d 6 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); In re O lop ad e, 40 3 F . 3 d 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). m ot i on. U ni t ed St at es v. B apt i s t e, 223 F. 3d 188, 189- 90 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( percur i am). T he s ame appl i es t o pet i t i ons fora w r i tof a u d ita q u e re la . See U ni t ed St at es v. H ol t , 417 F. 3d 1172, 1175 ( 11 C i r . 2005) ( w r i tof a u d ita q u e re la u n a v a ilab le w h e re re lief is c o g n iza b le th u n d er se cti o n 2 2 5 5 ). 1 A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.