2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-13-2012

Clarence Robinson v. B. A. Bledsoe

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-4491

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Clarence Robinson v. B. A. Bledsoe" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1289.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1289
ALD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4491

___________

CLARENCE J. ROBINSON, Appellant

v.

WARDEN B. A. BLEDSOE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-01203)

District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

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

February 24, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 13, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Robinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the District 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.

In 1996, Robinson was convicted in the United States District Court for the 

District of Nebraska for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. He appealed to the Court 
2

of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and both his conviction and sentence were affirmed. 

United States v. Robinson, 110 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1997). In 1998, Robinson filed a 

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The 

District Court denied his motion, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed once more. United 

States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002). Since that time, Robinson has sought 

habeas relief via numerous § 2255 motions, petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and 

applications to the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Each was 

denied or dismissed.

In June 2011, Robinson filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that his sentence was 

enhanced by a prior conviction that did not occur—a claim he concedes has been raised 

and rejected in his earlier habeas actions. The District Court construed his petition as a 

second or successive § 2255 motion, and dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

See Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971). Robinson appealed.1

A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary means to collaterally 

challenge a federal conviction or sentence. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d 

Cir. 1997). A federal prisoner can seek relief from an unconstitutional sentence or 

conviction under § 2241 if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 

 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Our review of the 

District Court's legal conclusions is plenary. See Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 262 (3d 

Cir. 2000).
3

290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We have held that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective 

where an intervening change in substantive law has potentially made the conduct for 

which the petitioner was convicted non-criminal. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 248. Robinson 

makes no allegation that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted; 

rather he asserts only that his sentence was improperly calculated. The Dorsainvil

exception is inapplicable to such a claim, and relief under § 2241 is therefore unavailable. 

See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). His claims should 

therefore have been raised via a § 2255 motion in the District of Nebraska, his court of 

conviction, and not in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.2

Robinson’s appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm 

the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.

 See Galante, 437 F.2d at 

1165; 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed the petition 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

 2 Robinson may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion without leave from the 

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). His present arguments 

have already been raised in his various prior motions, and were rejected. 

Accordingly, construing Robinson’s petition as one for leave to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion and transferring it to that Court would not be in the interest 

of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.