1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARJORIE DIEHL-ARMSTRONG

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cr-26

1:13-cv-136

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On December 28, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 

the § 2255 motion filed pro se by Defendant, Marjorie Diehl Armstrong. (ECF No. 326). 

Thereafter, Defendant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration with Particular Reference to Specific 

Unaddressed Errors Raised on Petition for Relief; and for Recusal of Judge” (ECF No. 327), 

which was dated January 12, 2016, and which was received and filed by the Clerk’s Office on 

January 19, 2016. Defendant also filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 328), which was dated 

January 12, 2016 and which the Clerk’s Office received and filed January 20, 2016. 

On January 25, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum Order denying Defendant’s 

Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal. (ECF No. 329). A copy of the Memorandum Order was 

sent to Defendant via First Class U.S. Mail on that same date. 

On January 26, 2015, the Clerk of Court filed three documents on behalf of Defendant: 

(1) a “Motion for Reconsideration with Particular Reference to Specific Unaddressed Errors 

Raised on Petition for Relief; and for Recusal of Judge Also for Disparity of Sentence Under 

(Section 2241),”1dated January 12, 2016, and mailed on January 14, 2016; (2) a Motion for 

 

1. This document is identical to Defendant’s already-denied Motion for Reconsideration, except she added 

“Also for Disparity of Sentence Under (Section 2241)” to the heading. There is nothing in the filing that could even 

generously be construed as raising a “sentencing disparity” issue. Neither of her other filings elaborate on the issue, 

either. 

Case 1:07-cr-00026-DWA Document 333 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Appointment of Counsel, dated January 20, 2016; and (3) a letter dated January 21, 2016. (ECF 

Nos. 330-32). 

However, as explained in the Court’s prior Memorandum Opinion, the filing of 

Defendant’s Notice of Appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction, which now rests with the Court 

of Appeals. Defendant’s motions must be DENIED on that basis. The Court also notes that, to 

the extent Defendant’s latest filing is seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it is procedurally 

improper. Section 2241 “‘confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner 

who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence.’” McGee v. Martinez, 627 

F.3d 933, 935 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001))

(emphasis added). Defendant, however, does not appear to be raising such a challenge. Any 

challenge to the validity of her sentence based on an alleged disparity in treatment should have 

been – but was not – raised on direct appeal and through the filing of a § 2255 motion. 

It is SO ORDERED, this 27th day of January, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

s/Terrence F. McVerry 

Senior United States District Judge

cc: Marjorie Diehl Armstrong 

08916-068 

FMC Carswell 

P.O. Box 27137 

Fort Worth, TX 76127 

(via First Class U.S. mail)

Marshall J. Piccinini

Email: marshall.piccinini@usdoj.gov

(via CM/ECF)

Case 1:07-cr-00026-DWA Document 333 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2