NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-1059

___________

JELANI C. SOLOMON,

 Appellant 

v.

WARDEN MCKEAN FCI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01521)

District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon

____________________________________

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

May 4, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 22, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Pro se appellant Jelani Solomon appeals the dismissal of his petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we grant the Government’s motion for 

summary action and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

A jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

found Solomon guilty of six charges, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with 

intent to distribute cocaine (count 1), carrying and using a firearm while drug trafficking 

and aiding and abetting the same (count 3), and using a firearm in relation to a drug 

trafficking crime and causing a death (count 6). Solomon dealt drugs and bought a 

loaded gun from an associate in exchange for cocaine; later, he paid someone in drugs 

and cash to use that gun to kill the father of an informant in his network. In 2008, the 

District Court imposed a sentence of life in prison on counts 1 and 6, with no possibility 

of parole on count 6, plus a consecutive term of 120 months in prison on count 3. We 

affirmed. United States v. Solomon, 387 F. App’x 258 (3d Cir. 2010). Since then, 

Solomon has filed numerous unsuccessful § 2241 petitions, § 2255 motions, and appeals 

in this Court related to his criminal proceedings, which we shall not recount here. 

In 2021, Solomon filed the § 2241 habeas petition at issue in this appeal. As he 

has in prior post-conviction actions, he argued that his conviction in count 3 for 

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 should be reversed based on 

Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74, 76 (2007) (holding that receiving a firearm in 

exchange for drugs does not constitute “use” of a firearm “during and in relation to a drug 

trafficking crime”). He added that our decision in Holland v. Warden Canaan USP, 998 

F.3d 70 (3d Cir. 2021), rendered his conviction in count 3 void. See id. at 75 (when the 
3

buyer of a gun has been convicted of § 924(c) and aiding and abetting the same, a 

conviction requires the seller to “use” the gun “during and in relation to” a “drug 

trafficking crime,” e.g., a felony capable of being prosecuted in federal court). The 

Government opposed the petition, and Solomon later filed a motion for emergency relief 

concerning the confiscation of his legal materials. Ultimately, a Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the District Court apply the concurrent sentence doctrine, dismiss the 

petition, and likewise deny the motion for emergency relief. Over Solomon’s Objections, 

the District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, dismissed the petition, and 

denied the motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 37. 

Solomon timely appealed, and later filed motions for reconsideration and for a 

stay of his appeal (3d Cir. Dkt. Nos. 14, 17) pending the present appeal-after-remand in 

the Holland v. Warden Canaan USP matter. See C.A. No. 21-3240. The Government 

has now filed a motion for summary affirmance. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 

10.6. Solomon filed a response in opposition. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The dismissal of a § 2241 

petition is reviewed de novo. Cardona v. Bedsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012). We 

review the District Court’s use of the concurrent sentence doctrine and its denial of 

injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. See Duka v. United States, 27 F.4th 189, 194 (3d 

Cir. 2022); Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017).

1

 

1 We consider the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of 

law de novo in reviewing the district court’s denial of an injunction. Reilly, 858 F.3d at 

176. 
4

We agree with the Government that the appeal presents no substantial question. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. Ordinarily, challenges to the validity of a conviction must be 

made through a motion under § 2255 unless that remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of [the] detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). We have recognized such an 

exception when a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction which 

an intervening change in retroactive, substantive law could negate. Okereke v. United 

States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d 

Cir. 1997)).

Here, we need not decide whether Solomon’s claim meets that standard. 

Assuming that it did, and further, that count 3 were rendered void as a result of the 

change in law, Solomon has two life sentences (including one without parole on count 6) 

which he does not challenge in his § 2241 petition. Because a vacatur of the challenged 

conviction would not reduce the time that Solomon will serve in prison in light of the two 

unchallenged life sentences, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by applying the 

concurrent sentence doctrine. See Duka, 27 F.4th at 194; cf. Gardner v. Warden 

Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2017) (affirming District Court’s denial of § 

2241 and declining to reach additional claims that would not alter the term of appellant’s 

imprisonment). As we have held in Duka, the concurrent sentence doctrine applies in 

situations like Solomon’s, where the challenged sentence is in fact consecutive to, rather 

than concurrent with, an unchallenged life sentence. See id. at 194.

Finally, we find no error with the District Court’s denial of the motion for 

injunctive relief, because Solomon had no likelihood of success on the merits of his 
5

petition when application of the concurrent sentence doctrine foreclosed review of his 

claim. Mag. J.’s Rep. and Recommendation at 4.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Solomon’s 

motions for reconsideration and a stay of the appeal are denied.