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 8-17-2005 

# S mith v . Na sh 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 . 05-2319

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 " S mith v . Nash" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 687. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/687NOT 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- 2319

________________ CA RL S M I T H,

A ppel l ant v. WARDE N J OHN NA S H, F CI F OR T DI X; UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . N . J . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 01282) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

_____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t1, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , B A R R Y and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM C ar l Sm i t h, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof2

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 f o r la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . W e w ill af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I n 1991, Sm i t h pl ed gui l t yt o drug char ges and w as s ent ence d t o t w enty - s even y e a rs in p riso n . S m ith sta tes th a t h e d id n o t f ile a d ire c t ap p e a l, or a m o tio n to v a c a te h is s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255. I n 2005, Sm i t h fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on under§ 2241 ra isin g a c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlye n h a n c e d h is s e n ten c e b a se d u p o n f a c ts th a tw e r e n o te s t a b l i s h e d b y h i s p l e a o rf o u n d b y a j u r y. A l t h o u g h h e c i t e s n o a u t h o r i ty, Sm i th r ai s es a cl ai m underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d is m is s e d th e p e titio n , h o ld in g th a t S m ith c o u ld n o t b ri n g h is c la im u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . T h is ap p ea l fo ll o w ed . W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r st an d ard o f re v iew is plen ary . B ak h tr iger v . E lw o o d , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A s r ecogni zed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , unl es s a mot i on under§ 2255 w oul d be

“ in a d e q u a te o r in e f

f e c tiv e ,” it is th e m e a n s b yw h ich f e d e ra l p riso n e rs c a n c h a llen g e th e ir c o n v ic tio n s o r s e n te n c e s . 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 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yi f the pet i t i oners how s thata 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 w r ongful det ent i on cl ai m . I d. T he C our ti n O ker eke he l d t hat§ 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o r ai s e a cl ai m underA ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466, 490 ( 2000) , w hi ch es t abl i s hed thatat s ent enci ng a j udge coul d enhanc e a s ent ence bas ed on fa ct s notadmi t t ed bythe def endantW e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatSm i t h’ s cl ai m i s t i m e- barr ed under§ 2255. 1 A l though t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed w hen the Supr eme C our tr ecogni zes a new r i ght , t hatr i ghtal s o m us thave be en made r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . 28 U . S. C . § 2255. B ookeri s notr etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al rev iew . L loy d v . U n it ed S tat es, 40 7 F . 3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 o r fo u n d b ythe ju ry , so lon g as th e e n h an ce m en t did n o t i n cre ase the d ef en d an t’ s se n ten c e b e y o n d th e p re sc rib e d sta tu to rym a x im u m . S im ilarly , § 2 2 5 5 is n o t in a d e q u a te ori neff ect i ve t o r ai s e a c l ai m underB ooker , w hi ch i s an ext ens i on of A ppr endi . T he fa ct th a t a c la im is tim e -b a rr e d d o e s n o t m a k e § 2 2 5 5 a n in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e re m e d y . C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es , 290 F. 3d 536, 539 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( percur i am). T hus , the D i s tr i ct C our tcorr ect l yhel d t hatSm i t h m aynotbr i ng hi s B ookercl ai m under§ 2241. 1 Sm i t h al s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r echa r act er i zat i on of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on as a mot i on under§ 2255 w i t houtgi vi ng hi m not i ce a nd al l ow i ng hi m t o amend or w i thdr aw i t . I n r echa r act er i zi ng t he pet i t i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tacknow l edged the not i ce r equi r ement s of U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l er , 197 F. 3d 644 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , butdet erm i ned that not i ce w oul d s erve no purpos e bec aus e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o any§ 2255 m ot i on Sm i t h m ayfi l e had e xpi r ed. A s Sm i t h does notcont end thathe has ot her§ 2255 cl ai m s for w hich a st atutoryor equit able basi s for t oll i ng the st atute of l i m i t at i on s appli es, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.