# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d J une 23, 20 09 Deci ded A ugust 1 8, 2009

B efo re FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 4209 L A W R E N C E STE V E N S, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. H ELEN J . M ARBE RRY, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fInd i ana, Te r r e H au te Di vi si o n. No . 2 : 0 8
- c v - 0 0 3 7 5 - WTL
- T AB W i l l i am T. Law re nce, Judg e . O R D E R L aw renc e Steven s is serving a sen ten ce of l ife im p risonm en t for d rug an d firearm offe n se s. H e a p p ea led , an d w e a ffirm ed h is c on vic tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ste ve ns , 38 0 F . 3d 10 21 , 102 3 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). H e filed a m ot ion to va c at e th e jud gm en t, see 28 U . S. C. § 2 255, w h ich w as d en ied in 2 00 7. St eve ns al so fi l ed a c i vi lcas e a gainst the go vernm ent, ar gui ng tha t ce rt ai n proper ty w h ich w as se ize d from h im in t h e c ou rs e o f th e c rim in al in ve st iga tio nsh ou ld be ret u rn ed . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ste ve ns , 50 0 F . 3d 625 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) . Incl ud ed i n that proper ty w as ne ar l y $ 50 , 00 0 i n c as h. Acc o r di ngt o S te ve ns , dur i ngthe c i vi lc as e th e g o ve r nm en t 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08- 4209 Page 2

adm i tte d that the m oneywas sto l en fro m a cre dituni on, ev en tho ugh, he s ays , the m oney w as used i n hi s cr i m i nalcas e a s e vi dence thathe was t ra ffi cking drugs . Th i s di s c r e pa nc y p r o mpt e d S t e v e ns t o fi l e a n a pp l i c a t i o n pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) , s e e k in ga u th o r i z a t i o nt o fi l e a s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s i v e mo t i o nt o v a c a t e . H e ar gued that the purpor tedl y inconsi ste nt posi ti ons tak en bythe pros ecuto r enti tl ed hi m to fi le anoth er § 2255 p etition. W e d en ied h is app li cation both becau se th e pros ecu tor’s posi ti ons w er e no t inconsi ste nt and beca use there was sti l lam ple ev i dence ofhi s guil t o f d ru g t ra ffick in g, so a re as on ab le fa c t-fin d er w ou ld st ill ha ve fou n d h im gu ilty . See § 2 24 4(b )(2) ; Stev ens v. U nited Sta tes , N o. 08-2312 (7th Cir. J un e 16, 2008 ). S te ve ns ne xtfi l ed a pet i ti o n pur su an t to 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 24 1 i n whi chhe pr es en te d the sam e a rgum ent. He ar gued that § 2 255 w as i nadequ ate to te st the l ega l i ty ofhi s dete nti on be ca us e he c o ul d no t sa ti sfy the s ta nda r ds f o ra utho r i za ti o n a nd thus he c o ul d pe r su e th e c laim in a § 22 41 p et itio n . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n c lu d ed th atSte ve n s’s arg u m en ts co u ld h av e b ee nan d w er e ra ise d in h is p rior § 22 55 p et itio nan d in h is § 22 44 (b )(3) ap p lica tio n . Acco r di ng l y, i t di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n fo rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n. S te ve ns a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d no t ha ve di smi ss ed hi s ca se , b ec au se , he s ay s, he ha s no o th ermean s o fc ha l l en g i nghi s co nv i ct i o n. Buthe di d ha ve a no th ermean s o fc ha l l en g i nghi s co nv i ct i o n, thro ugh see ki ng per m i ssi on t o fi l e a succe ssi ve col l ate ra lat tack . W e deni ed that perm i ssi on, and he ca nnot use § 2241 as a m eans to ci rcum vent the b aro n succes si ve § 2 255 p et itio n s b ec au se h e is u n h ap p y w ith th atres u lt. See In re D a ven po rt, 14 7 F . 3d 605, 60 9 ( 7th C ir. 1998). A ccor dingly, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s AFFI RM ED . S tev ens’ s m oti on for appoint m ent o fco unseli s D ENI ED 

### .