IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TERRY L. PERKINS, : 4:09-CV-2508

:

Petitioner, :

 :

v. :

 :

RONNIE HOLT, WARDEN, : Hon. John E. Jones III

 :

 Respondent. :

MEMORANDUM

June 28, 2010

This matter is before the Court on the petition by Terry L. Perkins

(“Petitioner” or “Perkins”) for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

For the reason set forth below, the petition will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 31, 1989, Perkins was presented before the Superior Court of

Connecticut, and charged with a violation C.G.S.A. § 21a-277(a).1

 On the same

day, the court appointed a public defender to Perkins. Two weeks later, on August

1

 The statute proscribes a penalty for “any person who manufactures, distributes, sells,

prescribes, dispenses, compounds, transports with the intent to sell or dispense, possesses with

the intent to sell or dispense, offers, gives or administers to another person any controlled

substance which is a hallucinogenic substance other than marijuana, or a narcotic substance. . .”

CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 21a-277(a).

1

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 6
14, 1989, the appointment was revoked. Following the revocation of Petitioner’s

appointed counsel, a second public defender was appointed on August 28, 1989,

who later withdrew with the permission of the court on September 11, 1989. On

February 6, 1990, Petitioner, apparently still without counsel, entered a plea of

guilty and received a sentence of seven years, execution suspended after three

years and three years probation. Perkins served three months and was then placed

on supervised release. 

On March 14, 2000, Perkins was sentenced in two separate cases in the

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Perkins was sentenced

to the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months following his guilty plea to

one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of Cocaine Base. 

On that same date, but in a different case, the court also imposed a 120 month

sentence on Perkins following his guilty plea and conviction on one count of

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. 

Perkins challenged these District of Connecticut convictions by filing a

direct appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on March 20, 2000. On

September 27, 2000, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Thereafter, on July 9, 2001, Perkins filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On September 6, 2002, the motion

2

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 6
was denied by the district court. Perkins’ request for a certificate of appealability

was denied. On January 17, 2006, another section 2255 motion was filed by

Perkins. By order dated December 19, 2006, that motion was also denied.

On April 9, 2007, Perkins filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. 

That petition was denied on July 25, 2007. Petitioner then filed a Petition for

Certification and this petition was denied on September 27, 2007.

On October 22, 2007, Perkins filed yet another section 2255 petition. That

motion was denied on March 7, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the district court issued an order denying Perkins’ motion

for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Perkins appealed that order and hte Second

Circuit dismissed that appeal on October 22, 2008. On May 6, 2009, Perkins filed

a second motion for reduction of his sentence. This motion was denied on

November 2, 2009 because Perkins’ sentence was not based on a sentencing range

that was lowered and a reduction in his sentence would not be consistent with the

United States Sentencing Commission’s policy statements.

Perkins later filed a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in light of the retroactive amendment to the

sentencing guidelines which reduces the base offense levels for crack cocaine

3

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 6
offenses. On January 12, 2010, Perkins’ motion was denied because he is

ineligible for a reduction in sentence.

On December 21, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this

Court.

IV. DISCUSSION

Within the instant petition, Perkins claims that he is entitled to habeas corpus

relief because the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the

District of Connecticut was enhanced by his uncounseled 1989 conviction in

Connecticut state court. A writ, however, is not available to Perkins. “As a

general rule, a § 2255 motion ‘supersedes habeas corpus and provides the

exclusive remedy’ to one in custody pursuant to a federal conviction.” Brown v.

Mendez, 167 F.Supp.2d 723, 726 (M.D. Pa. 2001) (citing Strollo v. Alldredge, 463

F.2d 1194, 1195 (3d Cir. 1972)). Indeed, § 2255 provides in relevant part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be entertained if it

appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief by motion to the court

which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it is

also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test

the legality of his detention.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(e). Quite simply put, section 2255 motions are the exclusive

means by which a federal prisoner can challenge a conviction or sentence that is

4

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of 6
allegedly in violation of the Constitution or federal laws or that is otherwise subject

to collateral attack. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974).

The remedy provided by § 2255 can be inadequate or ineffective “only if it

can be shown that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a Section

2255 proceeding from affording the prisoner a full hearing and adjudication of his

claim of wrongful detention.” United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 648 (3d Cir.

2000) (citing United States ex rel. Leguillou v. Davis 212 F.2d 681, 684 (3d Cir.

1954)). Moreover, the petitioner must prove the inadequacy of the remedy offered

by § 2255, a burden he cannot meet merely by showing that the § 2255 motion has

been denied. See Brown, 167 F.Supp.2d at 726 (applying the rule to a pro se

petitioner).

As outline in the procedural history section of this Memorandum, Perkins

has filed multiple section 2255 motions, all of which have been denied. To the

extent that Perkins alleges the federal sentence he is currently serving was

improperly enhanced by his previous conviction in Connecticut state court, he is

not permitted not seek relief by way of a section 2241 petition.

III. CONCLUSION

5

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 5 of 6
For the foregoing reason, Perkins’ § 2241 habeas petition will be denied. An

appropriate final order will be entered. 

6

Case 4:09-cv-02508-JEJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/10 Page 6 of 6