2006 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 ir c uit 7-28-2006 

# U SA v . P a di ll a 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 . 06-1582

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

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 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 Third C irc 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 2006 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " U SA v . P a d i ll a" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 678. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/678DP S - 2 8 3 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 . 06- 1582

________________ UN I TE D STAT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. ROQUE PADILLA, a/k/a RAF AEL

CRUZ a/k/a RAF AEL

PEVAL TA ROQUE PADILLA, Appellant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 00- cr - 00012- 1) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L a w re n c e F . S ten g e l

_______________________________________ 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 J ul y20, 2006 Be f o r e : FUEN TES, VA N A NTW ERPEN A ND CH AG AR ES, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2006)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AMW h e n n o tify in g P a d ill a , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t p ro v id e P a d ill a w ith a p p ro p ria te 1 w arni ngs aboutthe cons equenc es of r echa r act er i zat i on. See C as tr o v. U ni t ed St at es , 540 U .S . 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 (2 0 0 3 ). S e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . M ille r, 1 9 7 F .3 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H ow ever , Padi l l a i s ent i t l ed t o no r emedyforthi s l aps e, as r echa r act er i zat i on w oul d have serv ed n o m ea n ing fu l pu rpo se. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C h ew , 2 8 4 F . 3 d 4 6 8 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 2 In M a rc h 2 0 0 0 , R o q u e P a d ill a p lea d e d g u iltyto c h a rg e s o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te cr ack c ocai ne, di s tr i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne, and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i vercr ack c o c a i n e . Af

t e rh i s s e n t e n c i n g , P a d i l l a a p p e a l e d a n d f i l e d a mo t i o n p u r s u a n t2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d P a d ill a ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w ith o u t p re ju d ice to h is r i ghtt o r e- fi l e i tatthe conc l us i on of hi s appea l . A ft erw e af fi r m ed the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence , Padi l l a fi l ed anotherm ot i on pur s uantt o § 2255. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rtd e n ie d it, a n d w e d e c lin e d to is s u e a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. P a d ill a su b se q u e n tlyf

iled a “ p e tit io n f

o r re d u c tio n in ter m o f

im p riso n m e n t” o sten siblyp u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) a n d 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt not i fi ed Padi l l a thati tw oul d tr eathi s pet i t i on as a § 2255 mot i on and l at erfurni s hed Padi l l a w i th the pert i nentform . Padi l l a then s ubm i t t ed the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s i n a § 2255 1 m ot i on: ( 1) the D i s tr i ctC our tenhanc ed hi s s ent ence i n vi ol at i on of A 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 U ni t ed S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), an d h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss o f law ; an d (2 ) h is couns el r ender ed i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n fai l i ng t o r el yon I n r e W i ns hi p, 397 U .S . 3 5 8 (1 9 7 0 ), t o c h a lle n g e th e s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts .W e n o te th at P ad il la’s ap p ea l, b rou g h t w ith in 1 0 d ay s o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2 or der , i s t i m el yeven t o the ext entthathe appe al s fr om an or derdeny i ng r el i ef unde r18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 4; U ni t ed St at es v. Fai r , 326 F. 3d 1317, 1318 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e C ler k ’s O f

f ice n o tifie d P a d ill a th a t h is a p p e a l w a s s u b jec t to p o ss ib le 3 s um m aryact i on underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. I n r es pons e, he cont i nues to p re s s h is c la im s u n d e r A p p re n d i, B la k e ly, an d B o o k e r. 3 T h e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d P a d i l l a ’ s mo t i o n f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e we had notauthor i zed Padi l l a t o fi l e another§ 2255 m ot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o hel d that t o th e e x t e n tth a tP a d i l l a s o u g h ta r e d u c t i o n i n s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) on the bas i s of B ooker , he had notr ai s ed a c ogni zabl e cl ai m . Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thati tw as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derPadi l l a’ s cl ai m s under 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . P a d ill a a p p e a ls. W e w ill a f f irm b e c a u se n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is 2 p re s e n te d o n a p p e a l. S e e L A R 2 7 .4 . 3 T o the ext entthatPadi l l a pr ocee ded pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, the D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Padi l l a’ s m ot i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. G ener al l y , a di s tr i ct courti s w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on abs ent a u th o ri z a tio n b yth e a p p ro p ri a te c o u rto f a p p e a ls . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 4 (a ), 2 2 5 5 ¶ 8 . Such w as the ca s e i n the D i s tr i ctC our tas Padi l l a had notfi r s tr ece i ved ourauthor i zat i on d e s p ite h a v in g p re v io u s ly so u g h t § 2 2 5 5 re lie f. Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thati tw as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on to c o n sid e r P a d ill a ’s c laim s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , to th e e x ten t th a t P a d ill a so u g h t to pr es entthem underthats t atut e. Padi l l a ca nnotbr i ng hi s cl ai m s under§ 2241, beca us e a4

m ot i on t o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i s not “i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2255. Sect i on 2255 has been c ons i der ed i nadequa t e and i neff

ect i ve fora pet i t i onerconvi ct ed and i m pr i s oned forconducts i nce d e e m e d n o t to b e c ri m in a l. S e e In re D o rs a in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H o w e v e r, § 2 2 5 5 is n o t in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e ju st b e c a u se a p e tit io n e r is u n a b le to m eeti t s s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s . See i d. Padi l l a does notm ake a cl ai m that fi t s underthe I n r e D or s ai nvi l exce pt i on. I n part i cul ar , w e not e thatw e have hel d that § 2255 i s notan i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve w ayt o br i ng cl ai m s bas ed on A ppr endi . See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120- 21 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . M or eover , cl ai m s under B lak e ly a n d B o o k e r a re n o t su f f icie n tlyd istin g u ish a b le f ro m a c laim u n d e r A p p re n d i to m e e t th e In re D o rs a in v il e x c e p tio n a n d p e rm it P a d illa to s e e k re lie f u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . C f. O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. A l s o, s ucce s s on hi s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el does notunderm i ne the cr i m i nal i tyof Padi l l a’ s conduct . See In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 . L as t l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned thatPadi l l a had notpr es ent ed a bas i s fora r educt i on i n s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . A cr i m i nal m ay m ove form odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence i f a s ent enci ng r ange ha s s ubs equent l ybeen l o we r e d b yth e S e n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 9 9 4 ( o ) . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 58 2(c) (2) . H ow ever, § 3 58 2(c) (2) do es not afford P adil l a rel i ef be cause B oo ker i s a deci s i on of the Supr eme C our t , notan amendm entbythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. See,5

e .g ., U n ited S tate s v . P ric e , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c o llec tin g c a se s); U n it ed S tat es v . M o ren o , 4 2 1 F . 3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 0 -21 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (pe r cu ri am ); cf. U ni t ed St at es v. M cB r i de, 283 F. 3d 612, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatA ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , does notaff or d r el i ef t o a def

endants eeki ng a m o d if ic a tio n u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 )) . F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r w ill b e a f f ir m e d .