2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-12-2010

Charles Gross v. T. Sniezek

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-2558

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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

"Charles Gross v. T. Sniezek" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 447.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/447
1

HLD-191 (August 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2558

___________

CHARLES GROSS,

Appellant

v.

T.R. SNIEZEK, 

The Government

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00060)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 31, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 12, 2010) 

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Charles Gross, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 
2

Court=s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. 

For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Gross is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 

Institution-Schuylkill in Minersville, Pennsylvania, serving a sentence imposed in 2008 

by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January 28, 2010, he 

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 in the District 

Court. In it, he argued that the sentence imposed by the Federal District Court in 

Maryland was improperly enhanced by a prior Maryland State Court conviction deriving 

from a plea obtained in violation of the Constitution. The District Court dismissed his 

petition for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that his claim was not cognizable under 28 

U.S.C. ' 2241 because ' 2255 provided an adequate remedy for Gross=s habeas claims. 

Gross appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1291 and 28 

U.S.C. ' 2253(a). We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because this 

appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. 

Gross presents in great detail his argument regarding the unconstitutionality 

of his plea agreement with the State of Maryland. In 2000, in the Circuit Court for 

Prince George=s County, Gross pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine 

and was sentenced to five years in prison. The record does not reflect that he ever filed a 

28 U.S.C. ' 2254 habeas petition to challenge this conviction and sentence. In February 
3

2008, he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Circuit Court for Prince 

George=s County, arguing that his plea was not knowing and voluntary as he was not 

advised of the elements of the charge to which he pled guilty, either by the court or by his 

counsel. Following a hearing, his petition was denied. That decision was affirmed on 

appeal and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied relief. 

On June 23, 2008, Gross was convicted in the Federal District Court in 

Maryland of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

more than fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. '' 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) & 

846, and sentenced to 188 months in prison. Based on his prior state court conviction, he 

was designated a career offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. He argues 

that because his state court conviction was unconstitutionally obtained, his federal 

sentence should not have been enhanced on that basis. Because he is now in federal 

custody and can no longer bring a ' 2254 petition, Gross argues that the only way to 

challenge his underlying state court conviction and sentence is through a ' 2241 petition.

Gross does not dispute that he could have filed a ' 2254 habeas petition to 

challenge the legality of his plea agreement following the conclusion of his state court 

proceedings. See Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 381 (2001). The fact that he 

waited until 2008 to pursue any relief in state court does not mean that he can now seek 

relief under ' 2241. In In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997), we permitted the 

petitioner to proceed under ' 2241 because he had Ano earlier opportunity to challenge his 
4

conviction@ based on an intervening change in the law. See id. at 251. Here, the law 

has remained the same since Gross=s conviction. It appears that the only thing that has 

changed has been his understanding of the law. This does not justify his prosecution of a 

petition under ' 2241. Cf. Daniels, 532 U.S. at 382 (explaining that, for the purposes of 

' 2255, if Aa prior conviction used to enhance a federal sentence is no longer open to 

direct or collateral attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue those 

remedies while they were available . . ., then that defendant is without recourse@); 

Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att=y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 396-97 (2001) (extending holding of 

Daniels to state prisoners seeking to challenge enhanced state sentences under ' 2254).

As the District Court explained, the proper course of action for Gross would 

have been to file a direct appeal or petition for collateral relief in the appropriate state 

courts in Maryland, followed by a 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 habeas petition. See Daniels, 532 

U.S. at 381. Additionally, to the extent he seeks to challenge the calculation of his 

sentence based on his status as a career offender, he has not demonstrated that ' 2255, if 

properly utilized, would have provided an Ainadequate or ineffective@ means of relief. 

See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538-39 (3d Cir. 2002) (per 

curiam) (AIt is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is 

determinative.@). 
5

Based on the foregoing, we agree that the District Court properly dismissed 

Gross=s ' 2241 petition and will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

 

See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. 

 

 

1

 While the District Court could have treated Gross=s ' 2241 petition as a ' 2254 

petition and transferred it to the Maryland District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1631, 

we conclude that doing so would not have been Ain the interest of justice,@ particularly in 

light of Gross=s own representation that he can no longer pursue relief under ' 2254.