2005 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 Third C irc uit 10-24-2005 

# Leine nb a ch v

. W i lli amson P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3224

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L eine nb a ch v

. W i ll i am s on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 357. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/3571

HP S - 1 5 1 ( S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 5 ) 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 . 05- 3224

____________________________________ 

### JAM ES LE INENB AC H, Appe l l ant

v s. TROY W I LLI AMSON, W arde n, FCIAl l e nwood

_____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02442) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________ 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 Sept ember23, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed O ctob er 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

J ames Lei nenbac h, a fe der al pr i s oner , appea l s pr o s e the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s p e tit io n f iled p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill2

su m m a rilya f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. L ei nenbac h w as convi ct ed i n 1994 bya j uryi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia o f

c o n sp ira c yto m a n u f

a c tu re a n d d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne, m anufa ctur i ng m ethamphet ami ne, and pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. L ei nenbac h w as s ent ence d t o a col l ect i ve t erm of 27 y ear s i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s C our taff i r m ed Lei nenbac h’ s convi ct i on and sen tenc e o n d ir ec t app ea l, an d the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied L eine n b ac h ’s p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

c e rt io ra ri . In 1 9 9 7 , L e in e n b a c h f ile d a m o tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255 w hi ch w as deni ed. T hi s C our tdecl i ned t o i s s ue Lei nenbac h a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty , L ei nenbac h v. U ni t ed St at es , C . A . N o. 02- 3693, and the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rta g a in d e c lin e d to g ra n t L e in e n b a c h a p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

c e rt io ra ri . L eine n b ac h , w h o is i n ca rce rated at F C I-A ll en w o o d in W h it e D ee r, P e n n sy lv a n ia, f

iled th e u n d e rly in g § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n in th e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a i n N ovember2004. I n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on, L ei nenbac h r ai s ed chal l enges t o hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence underA ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and the I nt ernat i onal C ovenanton C i vi l and Pol i t i cal R i ght s ( “I C C PR ”) . O n J une 17, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed L e in e n b a c h ’s § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n , co n c lu d in g th a t L e in e n b a c h h a d n o t sh o w n th a t § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r in e f

f e c tiv e su c h th a t h e sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to p ro c e e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . T h is t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.3 A § 2255 m ot i on i s the pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch a f eder al pr i s onercan chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U . S. 333, 343 ( 1974) . A fede r al pr i s onerm aypr ocee d under§ 2241 onl yi f the r emedypr ovi ded by § 2 2 5 5 i s i n a d e q u a t e o ri n e f f e c t i v e t o t e s tth e l e g a l i tyo f h i s d e t e n t i o n . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 ; In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “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 of 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 and adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m s . ” 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 or m ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful orthe pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eetthe s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng requi rem ents for fi l i ng a secon d o r s uccessi ve § 22 55 m oti on . O kereke v . U nit ed S t at es, 307 F. 3d 117, 120- 21; s ee a l s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539. R ather , § 2255 i s i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve, forexampl e, i n the “r ar e s i tuat i on” w her e an i nt erveni ng change i n l aw m akes the cr i m e forw hi ch the pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed “non- cr i m i nal . ” O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at 120. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat L eine n b ac h ’s si tuation is no t th e ra re o n e re n d e rin g § 2 2 5 5 in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e . S p e c if

ica lly , w e h a v e h e ld th a t § 2 2 5 5 is noti nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve fora fe der al pr i s oners eeki ng t o r ai s e an A ppr endi cl ai m i n a § 2241 pr ocee di ng. O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120- 21. L i ke A ppr endi , the S u p re m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in B lak e ly(a n d m o re o v e r, U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 1 2 5 S . C t.A s the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ynot ed, beca us e Lei nenbac h i s a fe der al 1 pr i s oners ent ence d underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , hi s cl ai m i s bett er expr es s ed i n t erm s of B ooker . O f cour s e, thi s m akes no di ffe r ence t o the out come of L e in e n b a c h ’s a p p e a l. 4 738 ( 2005) ) , di d notchange the s ubs t ant i ve l aw as t o the el ement s of the off ens es for 1 w hi ch Lei nenbac h w as convi ct ed. A l though L ei nenbac h m ayfac e s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al hur dl es t o pr es ent i ng thes e cl ai m s i n a § 2255 mot i on, thatal one does not re n d e r a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n a n in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e re m e d y . L ikew ise, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s disp o sit ion o f L eine n b ac h ’s I CC PR cl a i m. Tr e a tyvi ol a t i on s maybe r a i s e d i n § 22 55 mot i on . Se e W e s s on v. U . S. Peni t ent i aryB eaumont , T exas , 305 F. 3d 343, 348 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng D avi s v. U ni t ed S tate s, 4 1 7 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 4 (1 9 7 4 ) f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t re lief u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 e x ten d s to tr eat i es ) . I n anyevent , how ever , habea s r el i ef i s notavai l abl e fora vi ol at i on of the I C C PR beca us e i ti s nots el f- exec ut i ng. See, e. g. , B annerm an v. Sny der , 325 F. 3d 722, 724) ( 6th C i r . 2003) ; W es s on, 305 F. 3d at348; U ni t ed St at es ex r el . Per ez v. W ar den, 286 F . 3 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 3 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

Fi nal l y , L ei nenbac h’ s as s ert i on of ac tual i nnocenc e does notal t erour co n clus ion that the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd ism issed h is § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n . L eine n b ac h ’s ar gum enti s one of l egal i nnocenc e, notfac tual i nnocenc e, bas ed on the err oneous pr emi s e thatA ppr endi , B l akel y , and B ookerappl yr etr oact i vel yt o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . See Ll oy d v. U ni t ed St at es , 407 F. 3d 608, 613- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng that5

B ooker , w hi ch appl i ed the B l akel yrul e t o the fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes , i 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 thatA ppr endi i s notr etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on c o llate ra l re v iew ). In sh o rt, L e in e n b a c h ’s a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a rg u m e n t is u n a v a ili n g in th is pr ocee di ng. B e c a u s e th is a p p e a l p re s e n ts “ n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n ,” 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , o rd e r.