2008 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 Thir d C ir c uit 12-16-2008 

# D a vid C ruz v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3216

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D a vid C r uz v . U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 101. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1011

H L D - 15 ( N ovem ber 2008) 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. 08- 3216

___________ DA VI D C RU Z, A ppel l ant vs. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ 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 ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 08- cv- 00829) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t 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

N ovember26, 2008 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 i l ed: D ece m ber 16, 2008

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

D avi d C ruz, a fe der al pr i s oner , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 I n D ece m ber1997, C ruz w as convi ct ed bya fe der al j uryi n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e, and di s t r i but i on of, m or e than fi ftygr ams of cr ack c o c a in e , co n sp ira c yto re talia te a g a in st a g o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss , k ill in g w ith a ttem p t to r et al i at e, and us e of a fi r earm i n a cr i m e of vi ol ence . T he courti m pos ed thr ee l i fe s ent ence s , al ong w i t h cons ecut i ve and c oncurr ents ent ence s of s i xtym ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ruz, D . N . J . C r i m . N o. 96- cr - 00730. W e af fi r m ed the j udgm entof convi ct i ons and s ent ence s on appea l , s ee C. A . N o. 98- 5170, and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed C ruz’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i . I n D ece m ber1999, he fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 al l egi ng thatcouns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . I n a M emora ndum O pi ni on and O r deri s s ued on J une 20, 2000, the D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded thatC ruz’ s cl ai m s w er e w i t houtm er i tand deni ed the mot i on. C ruz t i m el yappea l ed. T hi s C our tdeni ed hi s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yi n an o rde r i ssu ed o n A p ri l 6, 20 0 1 , see C . A . N o . 0 0 -20 3 7 , an d the S u p rem e C o u rt su b se q u e n tlyd e n ied h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri. C ruz then s oughtr el i ef i n t he form of a pe t i t i on forw r i tof err orcor am nobi s i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . I n hi s cor am nobi s pet i t i on, i tappea r s t hatC ruz once agai n cl ai m ed thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . C ruz’ s m ot i on far ed no bett erthan hi s § 2255 m ot i on, and w as d e n i e d b yt h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ti n a n o r d e re n t e r e d o n J a n u a r y1 0 , 2 0 0 2 . C ru z a p p e a l e d . We s um m ar i l yaff

i r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on on D ece m ber13, 2002, s ee C. A . N o. 02-3

1 2 8 0 , an d , o n c e a g a in , the S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied c e rtio ra ri.

C ruz s t at es t hathe ther eaf t ers oughtr el i ef i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe C entr al D i s t r i ctof C al i forni a w her e, on J une 15, 2005, he fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. A ccor di ng t o C ruz, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed th a t p e tit io n w ith o u t p re ju d ice . T h e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it ev e n tu a lly d e n ied C ru z ’s r e q u e st f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty , an d th e S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri. U ndet err ed, on M ay5, 2008, C ruz fi l ed y etanotherhabea s pet i t i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, t hi s t i m e i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a. O nce a gai n he as s ert ed thatcouns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance at tr i al . C ruz furt hercl ai m ed thathe w as depr i ved of a ful l hear i ng and fa i radj udi cat i on of the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s r ai s ed i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on, and thathe ca n n o w d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e is a c tu a lly in n o c e n t o f th e c ri m e s o f

w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . H a v in g c o n c lu d e d th a t C ru z f a iled to e sta b lish th a t h e w a s n o t af f o rd e d a f u ll an d f a ir ad jud icati o n o f h is i n ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel i ssu es, or tha t his rem ed yu n d er § 2255 w as i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve underthe s t andar ds s etfor t h i n s uch ca s es as C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 539 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , and A ppl i cat i on of G al ant e, 437 F. 2d 1164, 1165 ( 3d C i r . 1971) ( percur i am), the M agi s t r at e J udge t o w hom C ruz’ s pet i t i on w as r efe r r ed i s s ued a Repor tr ecomm endi ng thati tbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. O verC ruz’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed thatR epor tand4

R e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d e n ter e d a n o rd e r o n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 8 d e n y in g th e p e tit io n . T h is tim e ly appea l fol l ow ed.

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fores s ent i al l ythe sa m e re a so n s s e t f

o rth in th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n , w e w ill su m m a rilya f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

d ism iss a l. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded, a § 2255 mot i on i s the pr es um pt i ve means fora fe der al pr i s onert o chal l enge the val i di t yof a c onvi ct i on or s ent ence , unl es s s uch a mot i on w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i t yof h i s d e t e n t i o n . ” Ok e r e k e v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255 ¶ 5. A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yw hen “s om e l i m i t at i on of s c o p e o r p ro c e d u re ” p re v e n ts a m o v a n t f ro m re c e iv in g a n a d

ju d ic a tio n o f

h is c la im . C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538. Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pr i orm ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful orbeca us e C ruz i s unabl e t o m eetthe s t r i ngent gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on underthe A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E f

f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 . O k e re k e , 3 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 -2 1 . See al s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539.

T he “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi ded under§ 2255 i s extr emel ynarr ow and has been hel d t o appl yi n unus ual s i tuat i ons , s uch as thos e i n w hi ch a pr i s onerhas had no pr i or oppor tuni tyt o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on fora cr i m e l at erdeemed t o be non- cr i m i nal b ec au se o f a n interve n ing ch an g e in th e law . S ee O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 (cit ing In re5

D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) . Such i s notthe ca s e her e. C ruz had the oppor tuni tyt o chal l enge hi s convi ct i ons and, i ndeed, di d s o. I n addi t i on t o t he cha l l enges ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, C ru z p re se n ted th e v e ryc laim s h e se e k s to p re se n t vi a t he under l y i ng § 2241 pet i t i on i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . C ruz had the furt heroppor tuni t yt o r ai s e anychal l enge he w i s hed t o m ake w i t h r es pectt o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s § 2255 m ot i on – ei t herw i t h r egar d t o i t s cons t ruct i on of h is cl aim s o r w ith resp ec t t o the law ap p li ed to h is co ll ateral m o ti o n – in the req u est fo r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyh e f

iled w ith th is C o u rt o n a p p e a l. M or eover , C ruz’ s al l egat i on thathe i s actual l yi nnocentof the cr i m es for wh i c h h e wa s c o n v i c t e d i s n o t h i n g mo r e th a n a d i s g u i s e d a t t e mp tt o r e s u r r e c tc l a i ms w hi ch have been de ci ded adve r s el yt o hi m . H e does notar gue the exi s t ence of evi dence – n e w o r o th e rw ise – ten d in g to p ro v e h is in n o c e n c e . In ste a d , C ru z m e re lya rg u e s th a t if c e rta in e v id e n c e w e re e x c lu d e d f ro m h is tria l, th e re w o u ld b e in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s us t ai n the j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di ct s . T hi s ar gum ent , how ever , i s s i m pl ya r ew or ki ng of the cl ai m s C ruz pr evi ous l ypr es ent ed uns ucce s s ful l yon di r ectappea l and i n hi s § 2255 m o tio n . W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e e x c e p tio n id e n tifie d in In re D o rsa in v il is s im p lyin a p p lica b le in th is c a se , an d C ru z m a yn o t ev a d e th e g a tek e e p in g re q u ire m e n ts of § 2255 bys eeki ng r el i ef unde r§ 2241.

B eca us e the § 2241 pet i t i on w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed, no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof di s m i s s al w i l l be6

aff i r m ed. See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. C ruz’ s m ot i on forthe ap p o intm en t of

co u n sel i s d en ied. S ee T ab ron v . G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).