A L D

- 1 6 6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______ ____

No. 2 1

- 1 1 5 8

___________

C H A R L E S A A R O N B R O O K S

,

Appellant

v.

W A R D E N A L L E N W O O D F C I

____________________________________

On Appeal f

rom the United States District Court

for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil A c t i o n No. 3

- 19

- cv

- 00302 )

District Judge: Honorable M a l a c h y E

. M a n n i o n

______________________ ______________

Submitted for Possible D i s m i s s a l P u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o r

Summa ry Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 a nd I.O.P. 10.6

April 29, 2021

Before: M C K E E

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J r

. , a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Ju dges

(Opi nion filed June 25, 2021 )

___ ___ __ _

OPINION *

___ ___ __ _ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and purs uant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute bin ding precede nt.2

C h a r l e s A a r o n B r o o k s a p p e a l s f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f h i s h a b e a s

p e t i t i o n f i l e d u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 4 1

. W e w i l l a f f i r m

.

I n 1 9 9 6

, a j u r y i n t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a f o u n d Br ooks g u i l t y o f

c on s p i r a c y t o c o m m i t a r m e d r o b b e r y ( 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 7 1 )

, a n d s e v e r a l c o u n t s e a c h o f a r m e d

b a n k r o b b e r y ( 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 1 1 3 ( d ) ) a n d u s i n g a n d c a r r y i n g a f i r e a r m d u r i n g a c r i m e o f

v i o l e n c e ( 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( c ) )

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B r o o k s

, E

. D

. P a

. C i v

. N o

. 9 5

- c r

0 0 5 6 4

. Brooks was sentenc ed to 45 years of imprisonment on the § 924(c) counts

,

consecutive to a ter m of 262 months on the remaining counts. W e affirmed i n 1 9 9 8

.

B r o o k s ’ s p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n h i s t o r y i s e x t e n s i v e

. A s r e l e v a n t h e r e

, i n 2 0 0 1

, B r o o k s f i l e d a

m o t i o n t o v a c a t e u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5

. T h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t d e n i e d r e l i e f

, a n d w e

d e n i e d h i s r e q u e s t f

o r a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y i n 2 0 0 2

. S i n c e t h e n

, B r o o k s h a s m a d e

n u m e r o u s a t t e m p t s t o p u r s u e a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

. 1 W e d e n i e d h i s m o s t

r e c e n t a p p l i c a t i o n i n C

. A

. N o

. 2 0

- 3 0 9 5

.

M e a n w h i l e

, i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 9

, Br ooks f i l e d h i s § 2 2 4 1 h a b e a s p e t i t i o n i n t h e

M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

, t h e dist rict o f h i s c o n f i n e m e n t a t th e F e d e r a l

C o r r e c t i o n a l C o m p l e x

- A l l e n w o o d

. H e a s s e r t e d f o u r g r o u n d s : ( 1 ) a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e o f h i s

f i r e a r m s c o n v i c t i o n s u n d e r B a i l e y v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 1 6 U

. S

. 1 3 7 ( 1 9 9 5 )

, b e c a u s e t h e

G o v e r n m e n t f

a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t h e u s e d

, c a r r i e d

, o r b r a n d i s h e d a f i r e a r m f o r p u r p o s e s o f

1 I n 2 0 1 9

, w e g r a n t e d Brooks ’ s appli cation u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) a n d 2 2 5 5 ( h )

f o r l e a v e t o f

i l e a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n raising a vagueness challenge to

h i s § 924(c) convictions (C. A. No. 16

- 2352 ). Ultimately, t he sentencing court deni ed3

§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; ( 2 ) t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s f a i l u r e t o d e m o n s t r a t e a n e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f b a n k

r o b b e r y

, n a m e l y

, t h a t t h e b a n k s h e r o b b e d h a d d e p o s i t s i n s u r e d b y t h e F e d e r a l D e p o s i t

I n s u r a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n ( F D I C ) ; ( 3 ) t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s s u b m i s s i o n o f f a l s e e v i d e n c e o f t h e

b a n k s ’ F D I C i n s u r e d s t a t u s ; a n d ( 4 ) a C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e v i o l a t i o n u n d e r B r u t o n v

.

U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 3 9 1 U

. S

. 1 2 3 ( 1 9 6 8 )

, c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n f e s s i o n o f a n o n

- t e s t i f

y i n g c o

d e f e n d a n t

. Brooks s o u g h t r e l i e f i n c l u d i n g r e v e r s a l o r v a c a t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t

, d i s m i s s a l

o f t h e i ndictment

, a n e w t r i a l

, o r a c q u i t t a l

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e

, a r g u i n g t h a t

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l a c k e d § 2 2 4 1 h a b e a s j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e Brooks ’ s § 2 2 5 5 r e m e d y h a d

n o t b e e n r e n d e r e d “ i n a d e q u a t e o r i n e f f e c t i v e ” t o t r i g g e r § 2 2 5 5 ’ s s a v i n g s c l a u s e

,

§ 2 2 5 5 ( e )

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d Brooks ’ s § 2 2 4 1 h a b e a s p e t i t i o n f o r l a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t w a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e v e h i c l e

t o r a i s e h i s c h a l l e n g e s t o h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. F u r t h e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t

B r o o k s f ailed to show that § 2255 provided an inade quate or ineffective remedy t o a l l o w

f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s c l a i m s u n d e r § 2 2 4 1

. B r o o k s filed a motion for reconsideration

a n d r a i s e d a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e a c o

c o n s p i r a t o r

, t h a t a s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t m e n t w a s n o t s i g n e d b y t h e g r a n d j u r y

, a n d t h a t t h e

s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t should h a v e g r a n t e d a d o w n w a r d d e p a r t u r e d u e t o h i s m e n t a l i l l n e s s

.

T he D i strict C ourt c o n s i d e r e d a n d d e n i e d r e l i e f o n t h e m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

.

relief, and we denied a certif i ca te o f appeala bility in 2020 ( C .A. No. 20

- 1494 )

.4

Bro oks a p p e a l s

. W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 a n d 2 2 5 3 ( a )

. The

parties were notifi ed that the appeal wou ld be submitted for p o s s i b l e d i s m i s s a l u n d e r

2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) a n d f o r possi ble summary action u n d e r T hird Circuit LAR

27.4 and I. O.P. 10.6

. B r o o k s h a s f i l e d s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s a p p e a l

, w h i c h

w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d i n r e n d e r i n g o u r d e c i s i o n

. 2 W e exercise plenary review over the

D ist ric t C ourt’s leg a l con clusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to any factu al

find ings. Cradle v. United States , 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

A h abeas co rpus petition under § 2241 “ s h a l l n o t b e e n t e r t a i n e d ” unless a § 2255

motion would be “ inadequate or ineffectiv e t o t e s t t h e l e g a l i t y o f h i s d e t e n t i o n

. ”

2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5 ( e )

. “A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the

petitio ner demonstrates that some limitation o f scope or procedure would prevent a

§ 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hea ring and adjudication of his wrongful

detention clai m. ” Cradle , 290 F.3d at 538 . This exception is narrow and applies in rare

circ umstances. See I n re Dorsainvil , 119 F. 3d 245, 251

- 52 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Bruce

v. Warden Lewisburg USP , 868 F.3d 170, 180 (3d Cir. 2017).

B r o o k s h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t s u c h a c i r c u m s t a n c e e x i s t s h e r e

. A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

s t a t e d

, B r o o k s ’ s c l a i m s h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d o r c o u l d h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d

o n d i r e c t a p p e a l o r i n h i s i n i t i a l § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

. B r o o k s h a s n o t s h o w n a l i m i t a t i o n o f

2 Among Brooks ’ s fili ngs is a request for a certificate of appealabili ty , which we deny as

un ne cessary . F ederal p risoners do not n ee d a certificate to appeal from the denial of a

§ 2241 petition

. S ee Bruce v. Warde n Lewisburg US P , 868 F .3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 201 7)

.5

s c o p e o r p r o c e d u r e t o s a t i s f y t h e t e r m s o f § 2 2 5 5 ( e )

. T h a t h e a l r e a d y u n s u c c e s s f u l l y

p u r s u e d § 2 2 5 5 r e l i e f does not now ren d er the remedy inadequa te or ineffective t o a l l o w

h i m t o p r o c e e d u n d e r § 2241

. S e e Cradle , 290 F.3d at 538 ( “It is the in efficacy of the

[§ 2255] re medy, not th e personal inability to use it, that is determ inative.” )

.

Be cause Brooks ’s § 2241 habea s petit i on failed to satisfy § 2255(e)’s safety valve

provision, the D istrict C ourt lacked jurisdiction to conside r it

, a n d d ismissal of the § 2 2 4 1

petition was appropr iate. See Robinson v. Johnson , 313 F.3d 128, 139

- 40 (3d Cir.

2002)

. 3 W e d i s c e r n n o e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f B r o o k s ’ s m o t i o n f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; B r o o k s d i d n o t s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f

o r s u c h a m o t i o n

. S e e M a x ’ s

S e a f o o d C afé v

. Q u i n t e r o s

, 1 7 6 F

. 3 d 6 6 9

, 6 7 7 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 9 9 )

. T h u s

, no su bstanti al

que stion is pres ented by this ap peal

, a n d we will affirm th e District Court ’ s o r d e r s

. See

Third Circuit LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

3 To the extent that Brooks ’s argument in support of his appeal attempts to raise new

claims, including claim s based on the First Step Act of 2018 and amendm ents to the

United States Sentencing Gui delines, we will not c on sider those new claims here. S ee In

re Reliant Energy Channelview LP , 594 F.3d 200, 209 (3d Cir. 2010) (explaining that the

Court will “n ot consider new claims for the first time on appeal”) (citation omitted).