1

HLD- 1 3 1 ( M a y 2 0 1 0 ) 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. 10- 1646

___________ E DWARD C . BR OWN,

A ppel l ant v . UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( M . D . Pa. C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00858) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uant 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 ay28, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, SC I R I C A and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : Jun e 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

E dw ar d B r ow n, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss in g h is2

p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 a n d a n o rd e r d e n y in g h is mo t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I n 1996, B r ow n w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Sout hern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on and p o ss e ss io n o f

a m m u n iti o n b ya c o n v icte d f e lo n . H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 3 0 0 m o n th s in pr i s on. T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe El eventh C i r cui taff i r m ed the ju d g m e n t o n d ire c t ap p e a l.

I n 1998, B r ow n m oved t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da, as s ert i ng thatthe s ent enci ng courti m pr oper l yenhanc ed hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o the A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( “A C C A ”) , and thatcouns el fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue on d ir ec t app ea l. In d en y ing B row n ’s m o ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that B row n ’s s ent ence w as pr oper l yenhanc ed bas ed on thr ee pr i orvi ol entfel onyconvi ct i ons for a g g r a v a t e d b a t t e ry, r e s i s t i n g a rr e s tw i th v i o l e n c e , a n d b u r g l a ry.

B r ow n att empt ed t o chal l enge hi s s ent ence enhanc ementagai n i n 2008 by fil ing a h ab ea s p eti ti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe Southern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as an att empt t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on, expl ai ni ng thatB r ow n w as r equi r ed t o obt ai n the author i zat i on of the courtof appe al s t o fi l e s uch a mot i on. B r ow n then uns ucce s s ful l ym oved forl eave t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on i n the U ni t ed3

S ta te s C o u rto f

A p p e a ls f

o r t h e E le v e n th C ir c u it. I n 2009, B r ow n fi l ed a habeas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia c h a llen g in g h is s ent enci ng enhanc ement . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, concl udi ng that B r ow n w as r equi r ed t o s eek r el i ef unde r§ 2255. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thata § 2255 m o ti o n w as n o t an “ inad eq u ate o r i n ef fe cti v e” rem ed yb ec au se th e E leve n th C ir cu itC o u rt of A ppeal s had deni ed hi s r eques tt o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed B r ow n’ s ar gum entthata § 2255 mot i on w as “i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve” be caus e he ha d no m eans t o r ai s e a c l ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e underB egayv. U ni t ed St at es , 553 U . S. 137 ( 2008) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed B r ow n’ s s ubs equent m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch pr es ent ed addi t i onal ar gum ent s i n s uppor tof hi s habea s pet i t i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

A s r ecogni zed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , m ot i ons pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ar e the pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch fe der al pr i s oner s can c hal l enge thei rconvi ct i ons or s ent ence s . O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A l though a p e tit io n e r m a yc h a llen g e a c o n v ictio n p u rsu a n t to § 2 2 4 1 w h e re a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w o u ld be “inadeq uate ori neff

ect i ve, ” a § 2 25 5 m oti on i s not i nad equ at e or i neff ect i ve b ecause the pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eet§ 2255’ s gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s . C r adl e v. U ni t ed S tate s, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 -3 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ). R a th e r, a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve “onl yw her e the pet i t i onerdemonstr at es thats om e l i m i t at i on ofI n B ai l ey , the Supr eme C our thel d thata def endantcoul d notbe convi ct ed of us i ng a 1 fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug- tr aff i cki ng cr i m e under18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) unl es s the governm entpr oved thatthe def endant“ac t i vel yempl oy ed the fi r earm dur i ng an d in relati o n to the p red icate crim e.” D o rsainv il , 1 1 9 F . 3 d at 24 7 (cit ati o n o m itted). I n addi t i on, B r ow n cont ends thatB egaypr ohi bi t s the us e of hi s convi ct i on for 2 c a rry in g a c o n c e a led w e a p o n to e n h a n c e h is s e n ten c e , b u t itd o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t h is se n ten c e w a s e n h a n c e d b a se d o n su c h a c o n v ictio n . S e e B ro w n v . U n ited S tate s, S .D . F l. 98- cv- 08425, M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportat11( s t at i ng thatB r ow n’ s s ent ence w as enhanc ed bas ed on hi s convi ct i ons foraggr avat i ng batt ery , r es i s t i ng arr es tw i th vi ol ence , a n d b u rg la ry). 4 s cope orpr ocedur e w oul d pr eventa § 2255 pr ocee di ng fr om aff or di ng hi m a ful l hear i ng a n d a d ju d ic a tio n o f

h is w ro n g f

u l d e te n tio n c la im .” Id . a t 5 3 8 . B ro w n h a s n o t m a d e su c h a sh o w in g . T h e f a c t th a t B ro w n w a s u n a b le to m eet§ 2255’ s gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s does notr endera § 2255 mot i on “i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve. ” B r ow n’ s cas e i s al s o di s t i ngui s habl e fr om I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , i n w hi ch w e al l ow ed the pet i t i onert o r ai s e a Bai l eycl ai m under§ 2241. 1 T h e p eti ti o n er in tha t case h ad n o ea rl ier op p o rtu n ityto ch all en g e h is co n v ict ion fo r a cr i m e thatB ai l eym ayhave ne gat ed. I d. at251. A l though B r ow n cont ends thatthe S u p re m e C o u rts’ d e c isio n in B e g a yp ro h ib its th e u se o f o n e o f h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s to enhanc e hi s s ent ence , B egayhel d thata convi ct i on fordr i vi ng underthe i nfl uence of a lc o h o l is n o t a “ v io le n t f e lo n y ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

th e A C C A . B e g a y , 5 5 3 U .S . a t 1 3 9 . B ro w n ’s s e n ten c e w a s n o t en h a n c e d b a se d o n su c h a c o n v ictio n a n d B e g a yis i nappl i cabl e. 2 T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed B r ow n’ s ar gum entthatthe U ni t ed St at esS u p rem e C o u rt ’s gra n t of ce rt iorari i n U n it ed S tat es v . Jo h n so n , 5 2 8 F . 3 d 1 3 1 8 (11 th C ir . 20 08 ), w hich hel d thata con vict i on for si m ple bat t eryun der Flor i da law con st i tutes a “vi ol entfel ony ” underthe A C C A , s uppor t s the conc l us i on thathi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed. T he Supr eme C our thas s i nce r ever s ed J ohns on, hol di ng thatthe se n ten c in g c o u rt e rre d in e n h a n c in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e b a se d o n h is p rio r sim p le assa u ltco n v ict ion . Jo h n so n v . U n it ed S tat es, 13 0 S . C t. 1 2 6 5 , 1 2 6 9 -72 (20 1 0 ). B row n ’s sen tenc e, ho w ev er, w as e n h an ce d b ase d o n h is prior co n v ict ion fo r ag g rav ated b att ery underFl a St at . § 784. 045, nots i m pl e batt eryunderFl a. St at . § 784. 03. T hus , hi s r el i ance on J ohns on i s m i s pl ace d.

Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng B r ow n’ s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n . B e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t ra ise a su b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill sum m ari l yaffirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders .5