2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-17-2005

Smith v. Nash

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-2319

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Smith v. Nash" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 687.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/687
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-2319

________________

CARL SMITH,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN JOHN NASH, FCI FORT DIX;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D. N.J. Civ. No. 05-cv-01282)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2005

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 17, 2005)

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

Carl Smith, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his petition for a writ of
2

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We will

affirm the District Court’s order.

In 1991, Smith pled guilty to drug charges and was sentenced to twenty-seven

years in prison. Smith states that he did not file a direct appeal, or a motion to vacate his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In 2005, Smith filed a habeas petition under § 2241

raising a claim that the District Court improperly enhanced his sentence based upon facts

that were not established by his plea or found by a jury. Although he cites no authority,

Smith raises a claim under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The District

Court dismissed the petition, holding that Smith could not bring his claim under § 2241. 

This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard

of review is plenary. Bakhtriger v. Elwood, 360 F.3d 414, 417 (3d Cir. 2004).

As recognized by the District Court, unless a motion under § 2255 would be

“inadequate or ineffective,” it is the means by which federal prisoners can challenge their

convictions or sentences. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A

§ 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only if the petitioner shows that a limitation of

scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing

and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim. Id.

The Court in Okereke held that § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise a

claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), which established that at

sentencing a judge could enhance a sentence based on facts not admitted by the defendant
We agree with the District Court that Smith’s claim is time-barred under § 2255. 1

Although the statute of limitations is tolled when the Supreme Court recognizes a new

right, that right also must have been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review. Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608, 610 (3d Cir. 2005).

3

or found by the jury, so long as the enhancement did not increase the defendant’s

sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. Similarly, § 2255 is not inadequate

or ineffective to raise a claim under Booker, which is an extension of Apprendi. The fact

that a claim is time-barred does not make § 2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy. 

Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Thus, the District

Court correctly held that Smith may not bring his Booker claim under § 2241.1

Smith also challenges the District Court’s recharacterization of his § 2241 petition

as a motion under § 2255 without giving him notice and allowing him to amend or

withdraw it. In recharacterizing the petition, the District Court acknowledged the notice

requirements of United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), but determined that

notice would serve no purpose because the statute of limitations applicable to any § 2255

motion Smith may file had expired. As Smith does not contend that he has other § 2255

claims for which a statutory or equitable basis for tolling the statute of limitations applies,

the District Court did not err.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.