2005 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 9-7-2005 

# B rown v . H olt 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 . 05-2875

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " B r own v . H o lt " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 566. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/566B PS-350 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 . 05- 2875

________________ J A ME S A L T E R I Q U E B R O WN A ppel l ant

V. RO NN I E R. HO LT W AR DEN , FCI SCHU YLK I LL

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 00967) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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

A ugus t25, 2005 Bef or e : RE N D ELL , FI SH ER A N D V A N A N TW ER PEN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( Fi l ed: Sept ember7, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM2

J ames Brow n appea l s the di s m i s s al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 bythe D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. B r o w n w a s c o n v i c t e d i n th e D i s tr i c to f N e w J e r s e y o f

p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on and the fa i l ur e t o appea r , and w as s ent ence d t o a col l ect i ve t erm of 92 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. I n 2 0 0 1 , B ro w n f ile d a m o tio n to v a c a te p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255. T he mot i on w as deni ed, and w e deni ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . B r ow n v. U ni t ed St at es , C . A . N o. 03- 2952. I n 2004, B r ow n fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen the § 2255 p ro c e e d in g s . T h e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d , a n d w e d e n ie d a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. B r ow n v. U ni t ed St at es , C . A . N o. 04- 3505. T hi s C our tal s o deni ed B r ow n’ s appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, i n w hi ch he s oughtt o r ai s e cl ai m s under B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . I n r e B r ow n, C . A . N o. 05- 1395. B r ow n, w ho i s curr ent l yconfi ned w i thi n the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, t hen fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, agai n chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence under B ooker . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that§ 2241 w as notavai l abl e t o B r ow n and deni ed r el i ef. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n fil ed in the sen tenc ing co u rtis th e p resu m p ti v e m ea n s fo r a fede ral pri soner t o ch al l eng e t o h i s sent ence. 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5; O kereke v . U nit ed S t at es, 30 7 F . 3d 11 7, 12 0 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). A § 2 24 1 p et i t i on m ayno tbe en t ert ai ned un l ess a3

m ot i on under§ 2255 w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof [the] d e ten tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is n o t “in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e ” m e re ly beca us e the pet i t i onercan notm eetthe s tr i ngentgat e kee pi ng r equi r ement s of § 2255, O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120, orbeca us e the s ent enci ng courtdoes notgr antr el i ef, C r adl e v. U n ite d S ta te s e x re l. M in e r, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). B r ow n’ s cl ai m s fal l w i thi n t he purvi ew of § 2255. Fur therm or e, as found byt he D i s tr i ctC our t , B r ow n has notdemonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve. ” C f. O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 -21 (find ing § 2 2 5 5 n o t “i n ad eq u ate o r i n ef fe cti v e” , w h ere su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n e r so u g h t to ra ise se n ten c in g c laim b a se d o n in ter v e n in g d e c isio n in N ew J er s eyv. A ppr endi , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2001) ) . T o the ext entB r ow n ar gues thatthe

“ in a d e q u a te o r i n e f

f e c tiv e ” re q u ir e m e n t is u n c o n s titu tio n a l, th e c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ooks , 245 F. 3d 291, 292 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( r ecogni zi ng that re q u irin g f

e d e ra l p riso n e r to se e k re lief p u rsu a n t to § 2 2 5 5 , rath e r th a n § 2 2 4 1 , is n o t a s u s p e n s io n o f

th e w ri t) . A c c o rd in g ly , as th e re is n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l, w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m . T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4; T hi r d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6.