CLD-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-4145

___________

RICHARD POTTS,

Appellant

v.

DAVID J. EBBERT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3:12-cv-01355)

District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

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

May 2, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 4, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Richard Potts appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
2

I.

In 2003, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania convicted Richard Potts of murder and conspiracy to distribute cocaine 

base within 1,000 feet of a school. Following an appeal and remand for resentencing, the 

Eastern District sentenced Potts to two concurrent life sentences.

Since this court affirmed his sentence in 2007, Potts has filed a number of 

collateral attacks on his sentence. In 2009, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The 

District Court denied his motion, we denied Potts’ application for a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”), see United States v. Potts, C.A. No. 10-1682 (order entered July 

22, 2010), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Potts then 

filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). As before, the District 

Court denied his motion, we declined to issue a COA, see United States v. Potts, C.A. 

No. 11-1820 (order entered June 30, 2011), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 

Potts next filed a request for authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 

motion, which we also denied. See In re: Richard Potts, C.A. No. 11-3903 (order entered 

Dec. 13, 2011).

Most recently, Potts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition for lack of 

jurisdiction because Potts did not demonstrate that filing a section 2255 motion would be 

inadequate or ineffective. Overruling Potts’ objections, the District Court adopted the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the petition. Potts timely appeals.
3

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a).1 We exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions. Vega v. United States, 493 

F.3d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 2007). We may summarily affirm a judgment of the District Court 

if the appeal does not raise a substantial question. See I.O.P. 10.6; see also Murray v. 

Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011).

III.

The District Court properly dismissed Potts’ section 2241 petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. A motion filed under section 2255 in the sentencing court is the presumptive 

means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. 

Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). However, a petitioner can 

seek relief under section 2241 if the remedy provided by section 2255 is inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); In re Dorsainvil, 119 

F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997). “Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely 

because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has 

expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the 

amended § 2255.” Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 

2002) (per curiam). Rather, the “safety valve” provided under section 2255 is extremely 

narrow and applies only in unusual situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had 

 

1 A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of a section 2241 

petition. Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
4

no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for actions later deemed to be noncriminal by an intervening change in law. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re 

Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251).

We agree with the District Court that section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective 

to test the legality of Potts’ detention. Potts sought to invoke the “safety valve” by way 

of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225

(2011). In DePierre, the Supreme Court held that the term “cocaine base” as used in 21 

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) includes both crack cocaine and cocaine in its chemically basic 

form. 131 S. Ct. at 2237. Importantly, DePierre is consistent with precedent in this 

Circuit that existed at the time of Potts’ sentencing, direct appeal, and section 2255 

motion. See United States v. Barbosa, 271 F.3d 438, 467 (3d Cir. 2001). Because Potts 

does not rely on an intervening change in the law, his case is not one that falls within the 

ambit of Dorsainvil.

2

 Moreover, the mere fact that Potts already raised his DePierre

argument in an unsuccessful application to file a second or successive section 2255 

motion does not make section 2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy. See Cradle, 290 

F.3d at 539. For these reasons, Potts has not shown that section 2255 is “inadequate or 

ineffective” to test the legality of his detention. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251.

 

2

In any case, as the District Court noted, DePierre does not exclude crack cocaine from 

the sentencing scheme under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), see DePierre, 131 S. Ct. at 

2237, and therefore does not undermine the portion of Potts’ sentence that relates to 

conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine.
5

Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing Potts’ section 2241 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the 

District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Potts’

section 2241 petition. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.