2007 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 2-20-2007 

# C ole m an v . S amuel s 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 . 06-3888

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 nova 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 2007 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C o le m a n v

. S amue l s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1587. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1587A L D - 119 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. 06- 3888

________________ 

### W I LL I AM HENRY C OL EM AN , Appe l l ant

v. CHARLES E. SAMUELS, WARDEN, FE DE RA L C ORRE CT I ON AL INS TI TU TI ON AL

____________________________________ 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 D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 02913) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February8, 2007 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, CH AG AR ES AN D N YG AA RD , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: February20, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM W i l l i am H enryC ol eman, a fe der al i nm at e i ncar cer at ed atFC I For tD i x i n N ew J er s ey , appea l s pr o s e fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof

### 2

N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 forl ack of j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I n M ar ch 1996, C ol eman w as s ent ence d t o 210 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entas an arm ed ca ree r crim inal af

ter a jurysitti n g in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D i s t r i c to f

N o r t h C a r o l i n a f

o u n d h i m g u i l t y o f

u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v icte d f

e lo n in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ). T h e F o u rth C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls aff i r m ed C ol eman’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence , and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert i or ar i . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ol eman, 175 F. 3d 101 ( 4 C i r . ) ( t abl e) , cert . deni ed 528 th U .S . 9 5 8 (1 9 9 9 ). C o lem a n th e re a f ter f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te, s e t as id e o r c o rre c t h is s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof N or t h C ar ol i na on J ul y9, 2001. C ol eman cont i nued hi s ques tfor rel i ef i n the Fo urth C i rcui tbyfi l i ng t w o p et i t i on s pursuant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 1. T hese pet i t i ons w er e di s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , t he fi r s ton M ay22, 2002 and the s econd on M ay11, 2004. C ol eman appar ent l yappea l ed the l at t erdeci s i on and the Four t h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof di s m i s s al o n N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . U n d e ter re d , C o lem a n so u g h t au th o riz a tio n f ro m th e F o u rth C i rcui tC ou rtof A pp eal s t o fil e a secon d o r s uccessi ve § 22 55 m oti on , bu tt hat r equ est w as deni ed on M ar ch 15, 2005. Fi nal l y , on J anuary20, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W e ste rn D istric t o f

N o rth C a ro lin a d ism iss e d a m o tio n th a t C o lem a n f iled p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.

### 3

Si x m ont hs l at er , C ol eman fi l ed the under l y i ng § 2241 pet i t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse y , as se rtin g th a t th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rly amended t he i ndi ctm entand thatt he or i gi nal i ndi ctm entfai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l ys t at e a nece s s arypr edi cat e off

ens e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . C ol eman fur t herar gued t hata § 2255 mot i on i s an i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve means of cont es t i ng hi s s ent ence beca us e he i s actual l yi nnocentof the pr edi cat e convi ct i on s etfor t h i n t he i ndi ctm ent s i nce he has neverbeen c onvi ct ed of thatoffe ns e, w hi ch i s a “mat er i al and es s ent i al el ement . ” See “ M ot i on Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241" a t8. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a M emora ndum O pi ni on w her ei n t he courtconcl uded t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert he pet i t i on i ns ofaras t he cha l l enge pr es ent ed w as cl ear l yw i t hi n t he purvi ew of § 2255, and C ol eman fai l ed t o s how how a § 2255 mot i on w as i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tt he l egal i t yof hi s det ent i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hus ent er ed an O r derdi s m i s s i ng t he pet i t i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof di s m i s s al . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded, a § 2255 m ot i on i s t he pr es um pt i ve means fora fe der al pr i s onert o chal l enge the val i di t yof a con vict i on or sent ence, unl ess s uch a m oti on w ou l d b e “i nad equ at e or i neff ect i ve to t est the leg ali tyo f h is de tention . ” O k ere k e v . U n it ed S tat es, 30 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 (3d C ir . 2002) ; 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ¶ 5. A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yw hen “s om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e” pr event s a movantfr om r ece i vi ng an

### 4

adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m . 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) . Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pr i orm ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful ora pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eett he s t r i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. See al s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539. T h e “ sa f e tyv a lv e ” p ro v id e d u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 is e x tre m e lyn a rro w a n d h a s b e e n h e ld t o appl yi n unus ual s i tuat i ons , s uch as t hos e i n w hi ch a pr i s onerhas had no pr i or oppor tuni t yt o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on fora cr i m e l at erdeemed t o be non- cr i m i nal b ec au se o f a n interve n ing ch an g e in th e law . S ee O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 (cit ing In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 ). S u c h is n o t th e c a se h e re . A s th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly concl uded, C ol eman’ s al l egat i on t hathe i s actual l yi nnocentof the pr edi cat e convi ct i on s etfor t h i n t he or i gi nal i ndi ctm enti s notnew and, i n fac t , w as r ai s ed and a ddr es s ed byt he Four t h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s on di r ectappea l and pr es ent ed aga i n i n t he § 2255 m o tio n h e f

ile d w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f N o rt h C a ro lin a . C ol eman hi m s el f ac know l edges t hatt he cl ai m he pr es ent s i n t he under l y i ng § 2241 pet i t i on i s t he s ame cl ai m he has been a r gui ng i n t he court s of the Four t h C i r cui ts i nce 1 9 9 5 . S e e S u m m a ryA c tio n R e sp o n se a t 9 . T h e e x c e p tio n id e n tifie d in In re D o rsa in v il i s , t hus , s i m pl yi nappl i cabl e and Col eman m aynots eek r el i ef unde r§ 2241. B e c a u se th e § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n w a s p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d a n d n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof di s m i s s al ent er ed on A ugus t15, 2006 w i l l be af

fi r m ed. See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6.