2005 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 10-28-2005 

# T ra c y v . W i lli amson 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 . 05-2659

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T r a c y v . W i ll i am s on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 319. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/3191

HP S - 1 5 5 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 . 05- 2659

________________ 

### PA TRI CK

W I LL I AMTRAC Y, Appe l l ant v s. TR OYW I LL I AM SO N

__ ___________________________________ 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00682) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n 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 Sept ember23, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed O ct ober28, 2005 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

I n 1993, i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof M ai ne, P a trick W ill iam T ra c yw a s c o n v icte d b yju ryo f u n law f u l p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in2

vi ol at i on of 28 U . S. C . § 922( g) . Ser vi ng hi s s ent ence atF. C . I . –A l l enw ood, he fi l ed a se c o n d p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 to c h a llen g e h is convi ct i on. H e ar gued thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overhi s § 2241 pet i t i on beca us e he “ has fi l ed mul t i pl e § 2255 mot i ons and ca nnotobt ai n the r el i ef f r om the appl i cat i on of new orr ece ntSupr eme C our tdeci s i ons , U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker, . . . as w el l as , a cha l l enge t o t he uncons t i tut i onal i tyof 18 U . S. C . A . § 924 ( A C C A ) i n thi s cas e, w hi ch has no r etr oact i ve cons tr ai nt s . ” Pet i t i on at9. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s agr eed, h o ld in g th a t itw a s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r h is c laim s. T ra c yf iled a tim e ly m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n an d a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied T rac y ’s m ot i on, and Tra cyfi l ed an a m ended not i ce of appea l . B eca us e ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al q u e s tio n o n a p p e a l, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e rs w ill b e a f f ir m e d . I n h i s § 2 24 1 p e t i t i on , Tr a c yr e l i e d o n Appr e nd i v. N e w J e r s e y , 53 0 U. S. 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ), B lake lyv . W ash ing ton , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ), an d U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (2 0 0 5 ), to g e n e ra llyc h a llen g e ju d icia l f a c t-f in d in g a t h is s e n ten c in g a n d to s p e c i f i c a l l yc h a l l e n g e th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i tyo f th e Ar me d Ca r e e rCr i mi n a l Ac t , 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 (“ A C C A ” ). H e a lso c laim e d th a t th e A C C A v io late d A rticle I, § 1 , an d th e 5 th A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, as w el l as the R ooker - Fel dm an d o c tr in e . H e m ad e a n ad d it ion al claim that the u se o f th e state c ri m inal co m p lai n t or p o li ce rep o rt t o pr ove the A C C A el ement s fors ent enci ng w as uncons t i tut i onal i n l i ghtof Shepar d v. U n ite d S ta te s , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 2 5 4 (2 0 0 5 ).3 D es pi t e Tra cy ’ s ar gum ent s t o the contr ary , he ca nnotbr i ng hi s pet i t i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 , b e c a u s e a mo t i o n t o c h a l l e n g e h i s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255 cannotbe cons i der ed an “ i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” r emedy . 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ( 2005) . T r acym aynotbe abl e t o m eetthe pr ocedur al hur dl es t o br i ngi ng cl ai m s , s uch as h is A rt ic le I d e le g a tio n c h a lle n g e , th a t h e c o u ld h a v e ra is e d in h is f ir s t § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . H o w e v e r, § 2 2 5 5 is n o t in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e ju st b e c a u se a p e tit io n e r is u n a b le to m eeti t s s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s . See I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Fur therm or e, w e have hel d that§ 2255 i s notan i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve w ayt o br i ng cl ai m s bas ed on A ppr endi . See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 1 2 0 -2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). C laim s u n d e r B lak e ly a n d B o o k e r a re n o t su f f icie n tly di s t i ngui s habl e fr om a cl ai m underA ppr endi t o m eetthe I n r e D or s ai nvi l exce pt i on and p e rm it T ra c yto s e e k re lie f u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . C f. O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. A l s o l i ke A p p ren d i, S h ep ard did not chang e t he sub st anti ve law as t o the el em ents of the off ense forw hi ch Tra cyw as convi ct ed. See 125 S. C t . at1257. Succes s on hi s cl ai m under S h e p a rd (o r o n a n yo f

h is c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e s to th e A C C A ) w o u ld a f f e c t h is s ent ence , notthe cr i m i nal i tyof hi s conduct . See In re D o rs a in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 .

In su m , the D istri ct C o u rtw as w ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion to co n side r T rac y ’s pet i t i on under§ 2241. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Tra cy ’ s pet i t i on an d d en ied h is m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s4

o rd e rs w ill b e s u m m a ri ly af f ir m e d .