DLD

- 102

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10

- 4218

___________
CHESTER L. BLUM , Appellant

v.
RONNIE HOLT; BOP

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ( D.C. Civil No. 10

- cv

- 0 0736 ) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B ) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 28, 2011 Before: BARRY, FISHER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : February 7, 2011 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

Che ster L. Blum, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the2 United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241

. For the reasons set forth bel ow, we will
summarily affirm. See I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In 1994, Blum was fo und guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri of armed bank robbery, in v iolation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2113(a)
and (d ), as well as a firearm s offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He was

sentenced as a career criminal to 360 months of imprison ment , to be followed by three
years of supervised release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

af

fi rmed his judgment of sentence. Blum later filed a n unsuccessful motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255

.
In April 2010 , Blum filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania

– the District of his con finement

– a petition under § 2241
seeking his immediate release

. He argued that the 1994 federal sentencing court
improperly considered his prior 1962 state court murder conviction to determine that he

was a career offender
, which resulted in the imposition of a substantially longer sentence.

Blum asserted that he was entitled to have his claim heard under § 2241 because
§ 2255 is inadequate or unavailable

. Spe cifically, he claimed that he i s precluded from
filing another § 225 5 motion because the one

- year statute of limitations has expired
, and

also because he did not receive the documents necessary to demonstrate that his 1962

conviction should not have been considered for purposes of his 1994 federal sentence3 until 2005. A M agistrate Judge recommended summary dism issal of the § 2241 petition
, concluding that Blum’s recourse is to seek perm ission from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The District

Court ado pted the report and r ecommend ation of the Magistrate Judge
, agreeing that

Blum’s claim cannot be raised under § 2241 because he has n ot shown that the remedy

under § 225 5 is inadequate or ineffective. The District Court denied Blum’s motion for

reconsider ation and he timely a ppealed.

II.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291

. A § 2255 motion
filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge

the validi ty of a conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States , 417 U. S. 333, 343

( 1974); In re Dorsainvil , 119 F. 3d 245, 249 ( 3d Cir. 1997). A habeas petitioner may seek
relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective”

to test the lega lity of his detention. See Dorsainvil , 119 F. 3d at 249

- 51. A § 2255 motion

is not “ inadequate or ineffective” merely because the petitioner cannot meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke v. United States , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d

Cir . 2002), or because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle v. United States

ex rel. Miner , 290 F. 3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) ( per curiam). Rather, the “ safety valve”
provided under § 2255 is extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusua l
situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his4 conviction for a crime later deemed to be non

- criminal b y an intervening change in law.

See Okereke , 307 F. 3d at 1 20 ( citing In re Dorsainvil
, 119 F. 3d at 251).
We agree with the District Court that Blum has not demonstrated that a § 2255
motion provides inadequate or ineffective means to raise his claim

. Id. 1

As Blum ’ s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See

Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Thus, t o the

extent that Blum wishes to file a second or successive § 2255 mot ion with the sentencing

court , the District Court appropriately informed him that he must request authorization

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before doing so. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

.

1 We further agree with the District Court’s decision to deny Blum’s motion to amend his § 2241 petition as it is unclear from that filing wha t Blum sought to amend.