2006 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 12-19-2006 

# In Re S c arb orou gh 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 . 06-2565

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re S car

bor ou gh " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 68. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/68AL D- 4 7 NOT 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 . 06- 2760

________________ D ER RI CK W I LLI A M S, A ppel l ant v. W AR DEN M I NER

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00795) D i s t r i c tJ u d g e : H o n o r a b l e J a m e s M . M u n l e y

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember16, 2006 B efore: S l ov i t er, C hag ares and N y gaard, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed D ece m ber12, 2006)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM D err i ck W i l l i ams, a fe der al pr i s oner , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe asW i l l i ams s oughtt o r ai s e cl ai m s t hathi s convi ct i on coul d notbe s us t ai ned under 1 B ai l eyv. U ni t ed St at es , 516 U . S. 137 ( 1995) , t hathi s s ent ence w as i nval i d underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l. 2 c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). I n 1995, W i l l i ams pl eade d gui l t yt o drug and fi r earm s offe ns es i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. W i l l i ams w as s ent ence d t o 270 m o n th s in p riso n . T h is C o u rt a f f irm e d th e ju d g m e n t o n d ire c t ap p e a l. I n 1999, W i l l i ams fi l ed i n D i s t r i ctC our ta mot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, and thi s C our tdeni ed a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o deni ed W i l l i ams’ s ubs equentm ot i on f o r a m o d if

ic a tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). T h is C o u rt a f f ir m e d . T h is C o u rt a lso d e n ied re q u e sts b yW ill iam s f o r a u th o riz a tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 to f ile a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in D is tr ic t C o u rt . I n 2004, W i l l i ams fi l ed i n D i s t r i ctC our tanotherm ot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence under § 2255. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt r ans ferr ed the mot i on t o t hi s C our tt o t r eatas a r eques tunder § 2244 forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. T hi s C our tdeni ed author i zat i on, and W i l l i ams t hen fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2241 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r ai s i ng t he s ame cl ai m s he s oughtt o r ai s e i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on. 1W il li am s’ ca se is d ist ing u isha b le fro m In re D o rsainv il , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), 2 i n w hi ch the C our tal l ow ed the pet i t i onert o r ai s e a Bai l eycl ai m under§ 2241. T he p e t i t i o n e ri n t h a tc a s e h a d n o e a r l i e ro p p o r tu n i t yt o c h a l l e n g e h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o ra c r i me t h a tBa i l e yma yh a v e n e g a t e d . I d . a t2 5 1 . As r e c o g n i z e d b yt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , W i l l i a ms r ai s ed a Bai l eycl ai m i n D i s t r i ctC our ti n a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea. See U ni t ed S tat es v . W il li am s, 1 9 9 6 W L 1 1 9 9 7 2 (E . D . P a. 19 9 6 ) (de n y ing m o ti o n to w ith d raw p lea). A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance i s unnece s s aryand, t her efor e, deni ed. 3 3 T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng W i l l i ams’ § 2241 pet i t i on. M ot i ons pur s uantt o § 2255 ar e the pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch fe der al pr i s oner s can c hal l enge t hei rconvi ct i ons ors ent ence s on cons t i tut i onal gr ounds . O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A l t hough a pet i t i onerm aychal l enge a convi ct i on pur s uant t o § 2241 w her e a § 2255 mot i on w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve, ” a § 2255 mot i on i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve bec aus e the s ent enci ng cour tdeni ed r el i ef, orbeca us e the pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eett he gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s of § 2255. C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es , 290 F. 3d 536, 538- 39 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . R ather , a § 2255 mot i on i s i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve onl yw her e the pet i t i onerdemonst r at es t hats om e l i m i t at i on of s cope or pr 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. at538. W i l l i ams has notm ade s uch a s how i ng. W i l l i ams w as unabl e t o m eett he gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s of § 2255, and he maynotevade t hos e r equi r ement s bys eeki ng re lie f u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . 2 § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). 3