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 12-6-2005 

# M cK oy v . Apk e r 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 . 05-2547

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 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 cKo y v . Ap ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 154. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/154M cK oyent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y1985 as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t orfor 1 pl eas ur e. DP S - 3 4 2 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- 2547

____________________________________ 

### WIL L IA M M C K O Y , S R ., Appe l l ant

v. WARDEN CRAI G APKER, L. S. C. I . - Al l e nwood

_____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 05- cv- 00779) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n 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 t18, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber6, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM In 2 0 0 3 , W ill iam M c K o y , S r., a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f Ja m a ica , p led g u iltyto

1 pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance and cr i m i nal for fei tur e i n t heM cK oyfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on of the M ay2, 2005 or deri n t he 2 D i s tr i ctC our t . O n J ul y11, 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M cK oy ’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. M cK oydi d notfi l e a not i ce of appea l oran amended not i ce of appea l fr om t he J ul y11, 2005 or der . A ccor di ngl y , ourj ur i s di ct i on i s l i m i t ed t o a r evi ew of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s M ay2 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(4)(B )(i i) . 2 U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N eb rask a. M cK o yw as se n tenc ed to a term of s i xty - thr ee mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A l t hough M cK oyappar ent l ydi d notfi l e an appeal fr om hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , he di d fi l e an uns ucce s s ful m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e b ra s k a . M cK oy , w ho i s i ncar cer at ed atL SC I - A l l enw ood i n W hi t e D eer , Penns y l vani a, fil ed the u n d erly ing p ro se 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on A pr i l 18, 2005. I n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on, M cK oy al l eged thathi s r i ght s undert he V i enna Convent i on on C ons ul arR el at i ons and the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e he ne verr ece i ved not i ce of hi s r i ghtt o cont act the J amai can c ons ul at e af t erhi s arr es t . O n M ay2, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed M c K o y ’s § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n , co n c lu d in g th a t M c K o yh a d n o t sh o w n th a t § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r in e f

f e c tiv e su c h th a t h e sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to p ro c e e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . T h is tim e ly ap p e a l f

o llo w e d . T h e a p p e lle e h a s f ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a f

f ir m a n c e , a 2 m o ti o n w h ich s h o u ld b e g ran ted if th e a p p ea l prese n ts “n o su b stan ti al qu esti o n . ” 3 d C ir . L A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e w i l l gr antthe ap p ell ee ’s m o ti o n an d su m m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. A § 2255 m ot i on i s t he pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch a f eder al pr i s onercan3

chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U . S. 333, 343 ( 1974) . A fede r al pr i s onerm aypr ocee d under§ 2241 onl yi f the r emedypr ovi ded by § 2 2 5 5 i s i n a d e q u a t e o ri n e f f e c t i v e t o t e s tth e l e g a l i t yo f h i s d e t e n t i o n . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 ; In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve onl yw her e the pet i t i onerdemonstr at es thats om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e w oul d pr eventa § 2255 pr ocee di ng fr om aff or di ng hi m a ful l hear i ng and adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m s . ” C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pr i or m ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful ort he pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eetthe s t r i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120- 21 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; s ee a l s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539. T her e i s no doubtt hatM cK oy ’ s cl ai m s fal l w i t hi n t he purvi ew of § 2255, and, as the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, M cK oyhas notdemonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s “i nadequa t e or in e f f e c tiv e .” In sh o rt, M c K o y ’s c laim s c o u ld h a v e b e e n p re se n ted in h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n ; r ai s i ng them i n a § 2241 pet i t i on amount s t o not hi ng m or e than an a t t empt t o ci r cumvent the gat ekee pi ng pr ovi s i ons of § 2255. Fi nal l y , w e r ej ectM cK oy ’ s ar gum entthatr efus i ng hi m r el i ef unde r§ 2241 amount s t o an uncons t i tut i onal s us pens i on of the w r i t . C f. Fel ker v. T urpi n, 518 U . S. 651, 664 ( 1996) ( A E D PA ’ s r es t r i ct i ons on s ucce s s i ve pet i t i ons “do notamount t o a ‘ s us pens i on’ of the w r i t ”) ; Sw ai n v. Pr es s l ey , 430 U . S. 372, 381 ( 1977) ( hol di ng thatt he Sus pens i on C l aus e i s vi ol at ed onl yw her e habe as corpus i s r ender ed4

“ina d eq u ate o r i n ef

fe cti v e” ). 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 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s M a y2 , 2 0 0 5 o rd e r.