2009 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 10-13-2009 

# Aaron Grah am v

. W arde n Alle n wo o d 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 . 09-2736

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Aar on Gr ah am v

. W ar de n Alle n

wood " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 452. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/4521

HLD- 1 6 1 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. 09- 2736

___________ A A R O N G R A H A M , A ppel l ant

v. WARDE N OF F CI AL L E NWOOD

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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. 09- cv- 00885) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) 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 Sept ember30, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 )

____________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ar on G r aham fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , se e k in g c re d it ag a in st h is f e d e ra l se n ten c e f

o r tim e h e se rv e d in sta te2

pr i s on. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued thathe s houl d r ece i ve cr edi tfort i m e s erved fr om N o v e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , th r o u g h J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 . G r a h a m m a d e th i s a r g u m e n tp r e v i o u s l y, al bei tw i thi n hi s r eques ti n an ea r l i erpet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 forcr edi tfor t i m e s erved betw een A ugus t27, 2003, and M ay2, 2005. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed G r aham’ s ar gum entpr evi ous l yand deni ed hi s ear l i erpet i t i on. W e af fi r m ed the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . S e e G ra h a m v . H o g s to n , 2 6 8 F . A p p ’x 1 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). T h is tim e , re lyin g o n 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (a ), t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d G ra h a m ’s p e titio n . G ra h a m a p p e a ls .

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew de novo the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng G r aham’ s pet i t i on. U pon r evi ew , w e conc l ude that G ra h a m ’s a p p e a l m u st b e d ism iss e d p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(I) b e c a u se it h a s n o a rg u a b le b a s is in f a c t o r l a w . S e e N e itz k e v . W illia m s , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed G r aham’ s pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2244( a) as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. N o ci r cui tordi s tr i ctj udge nee d e v a l u a t e th e l e g a l i ty o f

a d e t e n t i o n w h e r e th e l e g a l i ty h a s p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d e t e r m i n e d b y a fede r al j udge ora fe der al court . 28 U . S. C . § 2244( a) . Sect i on 2244( a) bar s s econd or s ucce s s i ve cha l l enges t o t he l egal i tyof a de t ent i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, in c lu d in g th o s e § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n s w h ic h c h a lle n g e th e e x e c u tio n o f a f e d e ra l s e n te n c e . See Q ueen v. M i ner , 530 F. 3d 253, 255 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . G r aham pr evi ous l yr eques t ed cre d itfo r t im e se rve d b etw ee n N o v em b er 2 0 0 3 an d Ju n e 2 0 0 4 . W e a n d the D istri ct C o u rt3

cons i der ed and r ej ect ed hi s r eques t . N ei therw e northe D i s tr i ctC our tneed t o cons i der th e s a m e re q u e s t a g a in .

I n s hor t , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed G r aham’ s § 2241 pet i t i on as s econd ors ucce s s i ve under28 U . S. C . § 2244( a) , and w e w i l l di s m i s s thi s appea l pur s uant to 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(I ).