2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-11-2015

Stephen McCall v. Warden Canaan USP

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Stephen McCall v. Warden Canaan USP" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 599.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/599
ALD-209 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4501

___________

STEPHEN MCCALL,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN CANAAN USP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3:14-cv-02040)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 21, 2015

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 11, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
Stephen McCall appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his habeas petition filed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the judgment of 

the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

In 2009, McCall pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the District Court classified McCall as 

a career offender under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),1

and sentenced him to 180 months of imprisonment. We affirmed his conviction and 

sentence. See United States v. McCall, 448 F. App’x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential). In doing so, we rejected McCall’s argument that his prior convictions in 

Pennsylvania state court for drug trafficking did not constitute predicate offenses for 

purposes of sentencing under the ACCA. Id. at 223-24.

In 2012, McCall filed in the sentencing court a motion to vacate, set aside, or 

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting that his right to effective 

assistance of counsel had been violated on direct appeal. The sentencing court denied the 

motion on the merits, and we dismissed his appeal because it was untimely filed. See

United States v. McCall, C.A. No. 13-1271 (order entered on June 5, 2013).

 

1 Section 924(e)(1) provides for an enhanced sentence “[i]n the case of a person who 

violates [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)] and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony 

or serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
McCall then filed in the sentencing court a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking relief from the order denying his § 2255 motion. The 

sentencing court determined that the Rule 60(b) motion was an unauthorized second or 

successive motion to vacate, and transferred the motion to this Court.2 McCall then filed 

in this Court a complete application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which 

we denied. See In re: Stephen McCall, C.A. No. 14-3676 (order entered on Oct. 3, 2014).

In October 2014, McCall filed in the Middle District, his district of confinement, a 

§ 2241 petition in which he again challenged his sentence as a career criminal offender. 

McCall explained that he had recently obtained the plea colloquies from his state court 

proceedings and that they demonstrated that his predicate offenses were non-qualifying 

drug crimes for purposes of the ACCA enhancement.3 The District Court dismissed the 

petition, finding that McCall failed to demonstrate that a motion under § 2255 would be 

an inadequate or ineffective remedy. This appeal followed. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the 

District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 

538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). As the District Court correctly stated, a motion filed 

 

2 Simultaneous with the filing of his Rule 60(b) motion, McCall filed in this Court an 

application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion relying on Descamps v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2282 (2013), and challenging the District Court’s application of 

the modified categorical approach at sentencing. We denied the application because it 

failed to satisfy the requirements of § 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). See In re: Stephen McCall, 

C.A. No. 14-3074 (order entered on Aug. 1, 2014).
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal 

prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. Okereke v. United States, 

307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A petitioner may seek relief under § 2241 only if the 

remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 

detention. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997). A § 2255 motion is not 

“inadequate or ineffective” merely because the petitioner cannot meet the stringent 

gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120, or because the sentencing 

court does not grant relief, Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539.

We have emphasized repeatedly that the “safety valve” provision of § 2255 is 

extremely narrow and applies only in rare circumstances. For example, in In re 

Dorsainvil, we permitted a petitioner to proceed under § 2241 because an intervening 

change in the law decriminalized conduct for which the petitioner had been convicted, 

and he had no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction. 119 F.3d at 251. There, 

the petitioner was in “an unusual situation because [the relevant Supreme Court case] was 

not yet decided at the time of his first § 2255 motion.” Id. at 251-52.

McCall does not argue—and he has not shown—that such a circumstance exists in 

his case. Moreover, he appears mistaken about the information he presents in support of 

his claim. Attached to McCall’s § 2241 petition are what he describes as plea colloquies. 

However, they are form checklists rather than transcriptions of conversations with the 

 

3 McCall claimed that at the time of his federal sentencing, prosecutors indicated that the 

plea colloquies were not available for McCall’s predicate sentences because they were 
court. Because those checklists do not contain any information about the crimes to which 

McCall pleaded guilty (or the sentences that he received), they in no way undermine the 

sentencing court’s prior determinations.

Given that McCall’s petition failed to satisfy § 2255(e)’s safety valve provision, 

we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that it lacked authority under § 2241 to 

consider McCall’s claim. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 

 

too old. McCall stated that he was able to obtain them recently through his own efforts.