FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPT 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 60 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 01 43 9- CV-J EC-1 MIC HAEL C. AN TONELL I,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us WARDEN, U.S.P. AT LANTA, UNITED STAT ES PAROLE COMMI SSION, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep tember 17 , 20 08 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .KRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Thi s ca se requi res us to de ci de whet he r a fed eral pri so ne r m us t o bt ai n pe rm is si on fro m

th is co urt t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1. We con cl ud e h e d oe s n ot , bu t we n on ethe le ss affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e p et it io n. Mi ch ael Ant on el li , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, a sk s u s t o re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on . Ant on el li , con vi ct edof ba nkfrau d i n 1 97 8 andsen te nc edto 22 y ears im pr is on m en t, s ou gh t h ab eas rel ie f inth e d is tri ctco urt u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 41 , all eg in g h e was de ni edcert ai n c red it s to wardhi s s en te nc e to whi chhe was e nt it le d. Sp eci fic al ly, he cla im edth e Uni te d St at es Paro le Co m

mis si on erro ne ou sl y

de ni edhi m

cred itforaneig htm on th pe rio d of fed eral paro le in19 94 du rin g wh ic h h e co m m it te d two o th er o ffen se s i n C oo k Co un ty, Ill in oi s. He ev en tu al ly ple d g ui lty to th es e st at e cri m es (cri m in al tre sp as s an d DUI), b utno w con te nd s the co nv ic ti on s wer e unc on st itut io na l b ecau se hi s gu il ty ple as were u nc ou ns el ed . He so ug ht , am on g o th er thi ng s, (i ) anord er va cat in g the DUI andcri m in al tre sp as s co nv ic ti on s an d (i i) a n e ig htm on th reduc ti on inhi s s en te nc e, refl ect in g the ti m e se rv edon paro le du rin g wh ic h h e co m m it te d the off

en se s i n Il li no is
. Ant on el li pre vi ou sl y

fil eda § 2 24 1 h ab eas pe ti ti on inth e Eas te rnDis tri ctof

2Ark an sa s al le gi ng th e sa m e g ro un ds forrel ie f. The ea rli er p et it io n was reject edon

th e m eri ts , andth e reject io n was affi rm edon ap pe al by the Eig hth C irc ui t i n an unpubl is he d d is po si ti on . The di stric t co urt, ad op ti ng a m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on , di sm is se d the in st an t p et it io n fo r two reas on s: fir st , th at Ant on el li ha d n otob ta in edpe rm is si on fro m th is co urt t o fi le a se co ndor su cces si ve pe ti ti on , as re qu ire d b y 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 ), an d a lt ern at iv el y , th at th e p et it io n fa il edonth e m eri ts be cau se itis eit he r su cces si ve or abu si ve . Becau se th e § 22 44 (b ) ga te ke ep in g re qu ire m en t i m pl ic at es th e d is tri ctco urt’s jur is di ct io n to en te rta inth e p et it io n a t al l, s ee, e.g ., Farri s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 33 F.3d12 11 , 12 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), we ad dr es s i t fi rs t. As the go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi rs t re as on fordi sm is si ng th e p et it io n was erro ne ou s. Th e g at ek eep in g s ch em e o f § 2 24 4( b) (3 ) do es no t ap pl y to § 2 24 1 p et it io ns by feder al pri so ne rs . By it s t erm s, the ga te ke ep in g requi rem en t ap pl ie s o nl y

to “ a se co ndor s uc ces si ve ap pl ic at io n p erm it te d b y th is se ct io n,” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(A), tha t i s, “ a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as co rp us ap pl ic at io n u nd er s ect io n 2 25 4.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 ). Ther e is si m pl y no ba si s inth e st atut ory

tex t fo r ex te nd in g the ga te ke ep in g re qu ire m en t t o fe de ral pri so ne rs en ti tl edto pro ceedun de r § 2 24 1. 3Fo urcir cu it s h av e co ns id eredwhet he r se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 24 1 p et it io ns

are s ub ject t o g at ek eep in g re qu ire m en ts , bu t i n s li gh tl y di ffer en t co nt ex ts . They are g en eral ly in ag reem en t. Fi rs t, the Sev en th Cir cu itinth e cas e o f Val on a v . Uni te d S tate s, 1 38 F.3d69 3, 6 94 -9 5 (7 th Cir . 19 98 ) , co ns id eredth e is su e in ci rcu m st an ces si m il ar t o tho se pre se nt edhe re: a co nv ic te d fe de ral pri so ne r ch al le ng in g aparo le de te rm in at io n u nd er § 22 41 , aft er p rev io us ly seek in g re li ef un de r § 2 25 5. Th e co urt co nc lu de d n o g at ek eep in g was requi redforco ll at eral at ta ck s b y

a fed eral pri so ne r th at“ do no t ad dr es s the co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e.” Id
. at69 5. Othe r ci rcu it s h av e h el d tha t § 22 41 pe ti ti on ers fil in g s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on s fo r rel ie f fro m

de po rta ti on , Zay as v. INS, 3 11 F.3d24 7, 2 55 -5 6, (3 d C ir. 20 02 ), orfro m

ex tra di ti on , Barap in d v . Ren o, 2 25 F.3d11 00 , 11 11 (9t h C ir. 20 00 ), ne edno t o bt ai n p rio r ap pe ll at e ap pr ov al . The i m po rta ntpo in t t o d eri ve fro m th es e cas es is th atth e ab ov e types of p et it io ne rs – fe de ral pri so ne rs ch al le ng in g the ex ecu ti on of t he ir s en te nc e, an d p ers on s i n fe de ral cu st od y awai ti ng eit he r de po rta ti on or e xt rad it io n –rai se cla im s wh ic h, i f th ey are t o su ccee d, m

us t d o s o u nd er § 22 41 , no t § 22 55 . Nordo es Rit te nb erry v. Mo rg an , 46 8 F .3d33 1 (6 thCir . 20 06 ), su gg es t a co nt rary resu lt . In tha t ca se , th e Si xt h C irc ui t h el d tha t s om e § 22 41 pe ti ti on s ar e subjec t t o g at ek eep in g u nd er § 22 44 (b ). Bu t an y ap pe aran ce o f co nf

li ctis il lu so ry . 4InRit te nb erry, unl ik e th e o th er thr ee ca se s ci te d s up ra, the pri or pe ti ti on was fi le d un de r § 2 25 4. Th en , th e st at e p ris on er s im pl y fil edsu cces si ve cla im s, n om in al ly un de r § 2 24 1, tha t s ou gh t t o c ol la te ral ly atta ckhi s ju dg m en t o f co nv ic ti on . In ot he r wor ds , th e p et it io ne r so ug htto av oi d the pro cedur al stric tu res of § 22 54 by cap ti on in g h is pe ti ti on “ 22 41 .” Subjec ti ng su chpe ti ti on s t o g at ek eep in g i s n ot in co ns is te ntwith the ab ov e-ci te d aut ho rit y , no r with the lo gi c o f ou r own cas es . Ourcas es ho ldth ata pr is on er co ll at eral ly atta ck in g h is co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e m ay no t av oi d the vario us pro cedur al res tri ct io ns im po se d o n § 22 54 pe ti ti on s o r § 22 55 m ot io ns by nom in al ly brin gi ng su itun de r § 2 24 1. Se e Me db erry v. Cro sb y , 35 1 F .3d10 49 , 10 60 -6 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (st at e p ris on er cann otav oi d re stric ti on s on § 2 25 4 p et it io ns “ si m

pl y by writ in g ‘§ 2 24 1’ onhi s p et it io n fo r fed eral po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f”); Peo pl es v. Ch atm an , 39 3 F .3d13 52 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (§ 22 44 (d ) st atut e o f li m it at io ns ap pl ie s t o § 22 41 pe ti ti on s b y st at e p ris on er i n cu st od y aft er p aro le rev oc at io n) ; Dar by v. Hawk- Sawy er, 4 05 F.3d94 2, 9 45 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (fed eral pri so ne r m ay no t ci rcu m

ve ntbar on su cces si ve § 2 25 5 p et it io ns by fili ng un de r § 2 24 1) . In o th er wo rd s, the cas es inth is cir cu itco ns is te nt ly reco gn iz e th atpri so ne rs who see k t o c ol la te ral ly atta cka co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e m us t s at is fy

th e p ro cedur al requi si te s o f § 2 25 4 o r § 2 25 5, h owe ve r th ei r pe ti ti on is cap ti on ed , bu t p ers on s ch al le ng in g d et en ti on th atis no t p ur su an t t o ajud gm en t, 5orch al le ng in g the ex ecu ti on of t he ir s en te nc e, ne edno t. The re as on in g o f th es e 1
cas es su gg es ts th ata pr is on er m ay no t av oi d g at ek eep in g u nd er § 22 44 (b ) or§ 22 55 (h ) by a m ere c ha ng e o f cap ti on when , insubs tanc e, th ei r lawsu itco ll at eral ly at ta ck s a s en te nc e. Here, An to ne ll i’s p et it io n i s p ro pe rly bro ug htpu rs ua ntto § 2 24 1. A § 22 41 act io n i s the ap pr op ria te ve hi cl e to ch al le ng e a d eci si on of t he fed eral Paro le Co m m is si on . Hajudk v . Uni te d S ta te s, 7 64 F.2d79 5, 7 96 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (o rd eri ng a juri sd ic ti on al di sm is sa l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n c ha ll en gi ng Paro le Co m m is si on de ci si on ). Thi s i s b ecau se ch al le ng es to th e ex ecu ti on of asen te nc e, rathe r th anth e v al id ity

of t he sen te nc e it se lf, are p ro pe rly bro ug htun de r § 2 24 1.

Members of

this court have disa gree d in the past conc erningthe re lationship between § 1 2241 and § 2254. Specif

ically , they

have disa gree d about whethe r the two statutes e mbody distinct remedies, a

nd thus whether a

state prisoner

may avoid the proc edura l restrictions on § 2254 petitions by

filing unde r § 2241. Compare Thomas v. Crosby , 371 F.3d 782, 785- 88 (11th Cir. 2004) (B lack, J.) (citingMedber ry v. Crosby , 351 F.3d 1049 ( 11th Cir. 2003)) with id. at 802-811 (Tjoflat, J ., concur ringspecia lly). Ther e is no such dispute conc erningfede ral prisone rs. It is well-settled that a § 2255 motion to vacate is a sepa rate and distinct remedy

from habe as corpus pr oper. See United States v. J ordan, 915 F .2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (c itation omitted); see also Medber

ry , 351 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussinghistory of § 2255). It is also clear that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy for a fede ral prisone r to collater ally attack his c onviction and sentenc e, except in the ra re c ases whe re it is inadequate to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999). H ence , the domains of the diff ere nt collatera l reme dies are more c learly distinct for fede ral prisone rs than their state counter parts. Acc ording ly , it is uncontroversial that fe dera l prisoners ca nnot avoid the proc edura l restrictions on § 2255 motions by

chang ing the caption on their pe tition t o § 2241. Cf. Hawk- Sawyer, 405 F.3d at 945. A prisoner in c ustody pursuant to a f

eder al cour

t judgment may

proce ed under § 2241 only when he raises c laims outside the scope of § 2255(a) , that is, claims conce rning execution of his sentence
. 6See B is ho p v . Ren o, 2 10 F.3d12 95 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
.

Bec au se Ant on el li ’s pet it io n ra is es cla im s co gn iz ab le un de r § 2 24 1 b utno t § 2 25 5, i t was no t s ub

ject t o g at ek eep in g i n thi s co urt, an d the di st ric t co urt h ad juri sd ic ti on to en te rta init . Hence , th e d is m is sa l fo r fai lu re t o o bt ai n p rio r ap pe ll at e p erm is si on to fil e was erro ne ou s. No ne th el es s, the di st ric t co urt i s due to be affi rm edonit s al te rn at e rat io na le : the pe ti ti on ’s cla im s ar e su cces si ve . Su cces si ve § 2 24 1 p et it io ns by feder al pri so ne rs are s ub ject t o thr es ho lddi sm is sa l inth e d is tri ctco urt b ecau se No ci rcu itor d is tri ctjud ge sh al l b e requi redto en te rta inan ap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us to in qu ire in to th e d et en ti on of a p ers onpu rs ua ntto a jud gm en t o f a co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s i f it ap pe ars th atth e le ga li ty of su chde te nt io n h as be ende te rm in edby a jud ge or c ou rt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s o n apri orap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us , exc ep t as pro vi de d i n s ect io n 2 25 5. 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( a). Ant on el li ’s cla im s tha t h is Ill in oi s co nv ic ti on s ar e 2
co ns ti tu ti on al ly infi rm

ha s b eenpre vi ou sl y

ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts by the Ark an sa s h ab eas co urt an d a ffi rm edon ap pe al by the Eig ht h C irc ui t. His curren t pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us was the refo re s uc ces si ve , andpro pe rly dis mis se d b y th e At first g lance , one might conclude f rom the proviso (“ except as provided in se ction 2 2255”) that § 2241 petitions by fede ral prisone rs ar e indee d subject to g ateke epingvia § 2255(h), which is the only

provision of § 2255 addre ssing the f ate of succe ssive motions t o vacate. B ut § 2255(h), by

its terms, applies only

to a “se cond or suc cessive motion ” – that is, a sec ond or succe ssive motion to vacate a sentenc e under

§ 2255. Henc e, § 2255(h) does not apply to § 2241 habea s corpus petitions , assuming the prisoner r aises cla ims properly brought under the latter provision. 7di st ric t co urt.

AFFIRMED .

8