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 1-2-2009 

# S hmuel D a vid v . J. Grondol sky 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 . 08-1371

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 " S hmue l D a

vid v . J . Gr ondo l sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2081. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2081NOT 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- 1371

___________ S HM UE L DAVI D, A ppel l ant

v. J . GR ONDOL S KY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 05344) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber24, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary2, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Shm uel D avi d appea l s fr om t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e yd i s m i s s i n g h i s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n f i l e d u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . We wi l l a f f i r m. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts etfor t h a det ai l ed bac kgr ound acc ount , s o w e w i l l s um m ar i zeD av id w as, an d is cu rren tl y , an inm ate o f th e F ed era l C o rrecti o n al Insti tuti o n at F o rt 1 D i x , N e w J e r s e y. 2 t he r el evantevent s . A ft era ni ne- w eek tr i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof M as s achus et t s , D avi d w as convi ct ed of tw enty - t w o count s r el at i ng t o drug d e a l i n g , i n c l u d i n g c h a r g e s t h a th e e n g a g e d i n a c o n t i n u i n g c r i mi n a l e n t e rp r i s e ( 2 1 U. S . C. § 848) ; par t i ci pat ed i n t w o cons pi r aci es ( 21 U . S. C . § 846) ; pos s es s ed coc ai ne w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e on s ever al occa s i ons ( 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ) ; and fa ci l i t at ed numer ous drug t r ans act i ons byus i ng t he t el ephone ( 21 U . S. C . § 843( b) ) . T he s ent enci ng courtappl i ed t he J anuary1988 edi t i on of the fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes and s ent ence d D avi d t o a p riso n ter m o f

th irtyy e a rs in th e a g g re g a te. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F irst C irc u it vaca t ed the cons pi r acyconvi ct i ons buti n al l ot herr es pect s aff i r m ed the convi ct i ons and c o rre sp o n d in g se n ten c e s. D a v id th e n 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 under28 U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed. T he Fi r s tC i r cui taff i r m ed, not i ng th a t D a v id ’s s e n ten c in g a rg u m e n ts w e re “ p ro c e d u ra llyd e f e c tiv e a n d su b sta n tiv e ly inf irm . ” D av id v . U n it ed S tat es, 13 4 F . 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 8 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A l m os tt en y ear s l at er , D avi d fi l ed a s ect i on 2241 habea s pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t . I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, he cha l l enged the appl i cat i on of a w eapons enhanc ement

1 t o hi s s ent ence . C i t i ng A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , D avi d ar gued thatthe s ent enci ng courtw as not author i zed t o i m pos e the w eapons enhanc ementbeca us e he w as actual l yi nnocentof3

h o ld in g a g u n to a d ru g c o u rie r’s h e a d . H e c o n ten d e d th a t h e w a s e n tit led to h a v e h is cl ai m hear d unders ect i on 2241 i n l i ghtof the s t atut orybaragai ns tfi l i ng s econd or s ucce s s i ve s ect i on 2255 m ot i ons . B yopi ni on and or derent er ed D ece m ber17, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the s ect i on 2241 habea s pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatD avi d had fai l ed t o demonstr at e thats ect i on 2255 i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve s uch thathe s houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d unders ect i on 2241. D avi d appea l s . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 

### O ur r e v i e wi s p l e n ary. A sec ti o n 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n fil ed in the sen tenc ing co u rtis th e p resu m p ti v e m ea n s fo r a fede r al pr i s onert o chal l enge the val i di t yof a c onvi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 4 1 7 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 3 (1 9 7 4 ); In re D o rs a in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A habea s pet i t i onercan s eek r el i ef unde rs ect i on 2241 onl yi f the r emedypr ovi ded by s ect i on 2255 i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i t yof hi s det ent i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 2255; I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d at249- 51. A s ect i on 2255 m ot i on i s not “i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve” mer el ybeca us e the pet i t i onercannotm eetthe s t r i ngent gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s of s ect i on 2255, O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , orbeca us e the s ent enci ng courtdoes notgr antr el i ef, C r adl e v. U ni t ed S tate s e x re l. M in e r, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ). R a th e r, th e “ sa f e ty v a lv e ” p ro v id e d u n d e r se c tio n 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 to a p p lyin u n u su a l situ a tio n s, su c h a s th o se in w h ich a p riso n e r h a s h a d n o p rio r o p p o rtu n ityto 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 byan i nt erveni ng4

ch an g e in law . S ee O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 (cit ing In re D o rsainv il , 1 1 9 F . 3 d at 25 1 ). W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatD avi d’ s s i tuat i on i s notthe r ar e one r ender i ng s ect i on 2255 i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve. I ndeed, w e have hel d t hats ect i on 2255 is n o t in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e f o r a f e d e ra l p riso n e r se e k in g to ra ise a n A p p re n d i cla im i n a s ect i on 2241 pr ocee di ng. O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. A s i n A ppr endi , the S u p re m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in B o o k e r d id n o t ch a n g e th e su b sta n tiv e law a s to th e e lem e n ts of the off

ens es forw hi ch D avi d w as convi ct ed. D avi d ar gues hi s cas e i s a r ar i t yi n t hathe p re se rv e d h is c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to th e f e d e ra l se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s th ro u g h o u t h is p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r te r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o c o n s i d e rh i s p e t i t i o n . We d isag ree . S im p lyp u t, D av id’s co n v ict ion b ec am e f inal lon g b ef

o re A p p ren d i and B o o k er, and thos e dec i s i ons do notappl yr etr oact i vel yt o cas es i n t hatpr ocedur al pos tur e. See L l oy d v. U ni t ed St at es , 407 F. 3d 608, 613- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatB ookeri s not r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sw i nt on, 333 F. 3d 481, 491 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hatA ppr endi i s notr etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on co ll ateral rev iew ). Fi nal l y , D avi d’ s as s er t i on of ac tual i nnocenc e does notal t erourconcl us i on that the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd en ied c o n side rati o n o f h is cl aim s u n d er se cti o n 2 2 4 1 . In br i ef s um m aryof the cl ai m , D avi d di s put es the appl i cat i on of a f i r earm s s ent ence enhanc ementt hatw as bas ed on an i nci dentdur i ng w hi ch a drug cour i eri n t he oper at i on had a gun putt o hi s head. H e s t at es thatthe Fi r s tC i r cui t , i n deci di ng hi s appea l i n t heD avi d ar gues t hatw e s houl d r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entbeca us e i tw as 2 b ase d o n an inco rrect fa ctua l prem ise. S p ec ifi ca ll y , D av id states that the D istri ct C o u rt i ncorr ect l ys t at ed thathe w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i ng a fi r earm dur i ng the drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e and thathe di d notdi s put e pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 6 ( ci t i ng D i s t r i ctC t . O p. at14- 15. ) B e thatas i tm ay , ouranal y s i s and conc l us i on r egar di ng D avi d’ s actual i nnocenc e r emai ns unchange d. 5 s ect i on 2255 pr ocee di ngs , i nadvert ent l yas s um ed thathe per s onal l yhel d t he drug cour i er a t g u n p o in t. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 7 (c itin g D a v id v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 3 4 F .3 d a t 4 7 5 ). H ow ever , he mai nt ai ns t hathe i s actual l yi nnocentof thi s conduct , s t at i ng thatal t hough s t r ong- arm m en w entt o s car e the cour i er , he w as notther e, and hol di ng the cour i erat gunpoi ntw as notathi s di r ect i on. M or eover , D avi d ar gues thatther e w as no t r i al evi dence of anyw eapons , poi nt i ng outthatthe drug cour i ert es t i fi ed thathe w as bl i ndfol ded dur i ng t he i nci dentand di d nots ee a gun. D avi d r efe r s t o t he pr es ent ence re p o rt a n d a d d e n d u m th e re to in su p p o rt o f h is a rg u m e n t. A s n o ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt, t hi s i s notnew evi dence of ac tual i nnocenc e of the w eapons enhanc ement . See H ous e v. B ell , 5 4 7 U . S . 5 1 8 , 5 3 7 (20 0 6 ) (cit ing S ch lup v . D elo, 51 3 U . S . 2 9 8 , 3 2 4 (19 9 5 )). In 2 es s ence , D avi d i s at t empt i ng t o us e s ect i on 2241 as a w ayt o appea l orr el i t i gat e i s s ues pr es ent ed i n hi s uns ucce s s ful s ect i on 2255 pr ocee di ngs . D avi d’ s actual i nnocenc e ar gum enti s unavai l i ng i n t hi s pr ocee di ng. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.