2010 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 8-2-2010 

# T roy W i lli ams v . U SA 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 . 10-1653

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_2010

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 2010 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 " T r o y W i ll i am s v . U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 811. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/811BL D- 2 3 9 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. 10- 1653

___________ TR O Y M . W I LLI A M S,

A p p e l l a n t v . UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 vi l N o. 09- cv- 01744) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed byt he C l erk forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al forL ack of J ur i s di ct i on o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to 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 y9, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t2, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t T royW il li am s, p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ism iss a l o f

h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill2

su m m a rilya f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. W il li am s w as c o n v ict ed o f d rug -relat ed crim es in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof W es tV i r gi ni a i n 2003. A ft erhi s convi ct i on and s ent ence we r e a f f i r me d o n a p p e a l , h e f

i l e d a n u n s u c c e s s f

u l mo t i o n f

o rr e l i e f p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255. W i l l i ams then pur s ued var i ous ot herm ot i ons i n t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Four t h C i r cui tbefor e fi l i ng a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he U n ited 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 , w h e re h e is p re se n tly in c a rc e ra ted , in A p ril 2 0 0 9 . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t th e c laim s p re se n ted in W i l l i ams’ s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on “ar e qui nt es s ent i al § 2255 cl ai m s chal l engi ng p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e ” w h ich e ith e r w e re o r sh o u ld h a v e b e e n ra ise d in connec t i on w i t h hi s pr evi ous appea l s and pos t - j udgm entm ot i ons . A ccor di ngl y , on J ul y6, 2009, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n . S e e O k e re k e v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 -2 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). O n A ugus t21, 2009, W i l l i ams fi l ed a doc um entent i t l ed “M ot i on forR ehea r i ng and R ehea r i ng E n B anc Rul e 41” i n w hi ch he a gai n s etoutthe ar gum ent s w hi ch he b e lie v e d s u p p o rt e d th e g ra n t o f a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . T his do cum ent w as fi l ed in the D i stri ctC ou rt , w hich forw arded i tt o thi s C ou rt . B ecause the documentw as m i s l abel ed, i tw as r eturned t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch cons t rued i tas a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. U nderform erFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) , s uch a mot i on had t o be fi l ed w i t hi n 10 day s of entr yof the under l y i ng j udgm ent . See form erB eca us e w e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe § 2241 pet i t i on, 1 w e nee d notaddr es s att he pr es entt i m e w hetherthi s w as a pr operexer ci s e of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s di s cr et i on. 3 Fed. R . C i v. P. 59( e) ( amendm enteff ect i ve D ec. 1, 2009) . W hi l e not i ng thatthe mot i on, so c o n stru e d , w a s u n tim e ly , the D istric t C o u rt n o n e th e les s e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n in c o n sid e rin g it. E x p lain in g th a t W ill iam s m e re lyre -sta ted h is in iti a l ar g u m e n ts in h is 1 m ot i on, the C our tor der ed the ca s e r e- opened, agai n deni ed r el i ef, and or der ed the ca s e r ec lo se d . W ill iam s tim e lyf iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. B eca us e thi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he j ud gm ent of t he D i stri ctC ou rt . S ee 3d C i r. L A R 27 . 4; I . O . P . 10 . 6. In hi s fi l i ng s, W ill iam s th o ro u g h lyd o c u m e n ts th e w a y s in w h ich h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re a lleg e d ly vi ol at ed byt he j us t i ce s y s t em i n W es tV i r gi ni a. H e does not , how ever , demonstr at e how the N ew J er s eyD i s t r i ctC our thas j ur i s di ct i on overhi s pet i t i on. A m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i s t he exc l us i ve means t o col l at er al l ychal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i t yof a fede r al convi ct i on ors ent ence . See O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120. Such a mot i on m us tbe f i l e d i n t h e c o u rtw h i c h i m p o s e d t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e . S e e 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 ( a ) . We h a v e h e ld th a t a d istric t co u rt c a n n o t co n sid e r a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n f iled p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2241 unl es s a § 2255 mot i on w oul d pr ovi de an “ i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” m e a n s o f re lie f. S e e A p p lic a tio n o f G a la n te , 4 3 7 F .2 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 1 ). Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve s i m pl ybeca us e W i l l i ams has al r eadybeen deni ed r el i ef byt he W es tV i r gi ni a court s and ther efor e maynotfi l e another§ 22554

m o ti o n there . S ee C rad le v. U n it ed S tat es e x rel. M iner, 29 0 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 -39 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (“ It is th e in e f f ica c yo f th e re m e d y , n o t th e p e rso n a l in a b ili tyto u se it, thati s det erm i nat i ve. ”) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thati tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overW i l l i ams’ s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on, s ee O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at121, w e conc l ude thatt hi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on and, ther efor e, w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m . S e e 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 .