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 Thir d C ir c uit 8-15-2006 

# M cLoyd v . Na sh 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 . 06-1809

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_2006

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 2006 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 " M cL o yd v

. Nash" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 586. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/586AP S - 2 7 7 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- 1809

________________ L UT HE R J . M CL OYD, A ppel l ant

v. WARDE N J OHN NA S H; 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

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 04154) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d 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 y13, 2006 Bef or e : SLO V I TER , M c K EE A N D FI SH ER , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t15, 2006 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t L u th e r M c L o y d a p p e a ls f ro m th e d ism iss a l f

o r la c k o f

ju risd ictio n o f

h is pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. B eca us e no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See L. A . R . 27. 4.M cLoy d i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atFC I - For tD i x. 1 2 M cLoy d pl eade d gui l t yi n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ct of N or t h C ar ol i na t o pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han fi ftygr ams of cr ack coca i ne, forw hi ch he r ece i ved 262 mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ft erpur s ui ng a di r ectappea l and s ever al habea s chal l enges i n N or t h C ar ol i na, he fi l ed a § 2241 pe t i t i on i n t he U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse y c laim in g a v io latio n o f th e ru le 1 announce d i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatM cLoy d coul d notbr i ng hi s pet i t i on under§ 2241 beca us e 28 U . S. C . § 2255 w as not i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve. I tt hen di s m i s s ed the mot i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, concl udi ng t hata § 2255 mot i on m us tbe fi l ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t“w hi ch i m pos ed the s ent ence . . . . ” § 2255 ¶ 1. M cLoy d appea l ed. A fede ral pri soner cann ot fi l e a cha l l eng e t o h i s conv i ct i on un der § 22 41 un l ess § 2 2 5 5 is “i n ad eq u ate a n d inef fe cti v e.” § 2 2 5 5 ¶ 5 ; see a lso C rad le v. U . S . ex rel. M iner, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). S e c tio n 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 ” sim p ly beca us e the movantcannotm eett he s ect i on’ s s t r i ngentgat e- keepi ng r equi r ement s ort hat t he s ent enci ng cour thas fai l ed t o gr antr el i ef. See I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251- 52 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtis co rrect th at th e ins tant ca se is d ist ing u ishe d fro m In re D or s ai nvi l . T her e, w e narr ow l ycons t rued D or s ai nvi l and hel d t hat§ 2255 w as in e f f e c tiv e w h e re a S u p re m e C o u rt d e c isio n c h a n g e d su b sta n tiv e law w h ich c o u ld n e g a teW e n o te th a t A p p e lla n t’ s s u b m is s io n o n a p p e a l is e x tr e m e ly d if f ic u lt to d e c ip h e r. 2 H e appe ar s t o conce de thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yrul ed on hi s B ookercl ai m , buthe a rg u e s th a t an u n d e rly in g n e w c laim re latin g to a n a m e n d m e n t o f th e in d ictm e n t is cogni zabl e under§ 2241. W e t ake no pos i t i on on thi s ar gum entas w e gene r al l ydo not cons i dercl ai m s notpr es ent ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . See R oy ce v. H ahn, 151 F. 3d 116, 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 3 a convi ct i on i f m ade r etr oact i ve and the pr i s onerhad no pr i oroppor tuni t yt o r ai s e the i s s ue. See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120- 21 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . E ven a s ucce s s ful chal l enge unde rB ookerw oul d notr endert he conduc tforw hi ch M cLoy d w as convi ct ed non- cr i m i nal . O ker eke’ s s i m i l arconcl us i on w i t h r es pectt o a cha l l enge unde r A p p re n d i v . N e w Je rse y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), co n tro ls in th is s itu a tio n . M c L o y d f a ils to s h o w th a t § 2 2 5 5 is “ in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e .” T hus , M cLoy d’ s pet i t i on s houl d be cons t rued as a § 2255 mot i on. H ow ever , s uch a m o ti o n m u st be fil ed in the co u rtw h ich im p o sed the s en tenc e. § 2 2 5 5 ¶ 1 . M o reo v er, sinc e M cL o y d h as a lr ea d yp u rsue d a § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n in the D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof N or t h C ar ol i na, he musts eek the author i zat i on of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Four t h C i r cui t . See 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ¶ 8. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e yd o e s n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r M c L o y d ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l a f f i r m. 2