CLD

- 083 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 22

- 3152

___________ ANSON CHI , Appellant

v. WARDEN MCKEAN FCI

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 20

- cv - 00049 ) District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter

____________________________________ Subm itted 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 February 2, 2023 Before: GREENAWAY, Jr., MATEY, and FREEMAN , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : May 2 3 , 2023 )

__________ OPINION *

___ _______ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Appellant Anson Chi, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court ’s order s dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , and denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. In June 2015, Chi entered a guilty plea in the Eastern District of Texas to offenses related to malicious use o f explosive materials and possession of an unregistered firearm. He was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Chi did not obtain relief on direct appeal. See United States v. Chi , 708 F. App’x 184 (5 th Cir. 2017). In October 2019, Chi filed a motion t o vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District of Texas, raising thirteen claims for relief. The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended denying relief. See Chi v. United States , No. 4

- 19

- cv - 793, 2021 WL 5260289, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2021). The Eastern District of Texas adopted that recommendation, denied Chi’s § 2255 motion, and dismissed his case with prejudice. See Chi v. United States , 2021 WL 5239600 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2021 ). In March 2020, (five mont hs after Chi had filed his § 2255 motion but before the Eastern District of Texas had ruled on it ), Chi filed the present § 2241 petition in the Western District of Pennsylvania, raising the same claims presented in his § 2255 motion. According to Chi, th e Eastern District of Texas “vehemently refuse[d] to consider” his motion which render ed § 2255 an inadequate and ineffective remedy for pursuing his claims. ECF No. 7 at p. 3

. The Government responded, arguing that the District Court3 for the Western Dis trict of Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction to consider Chi’s petition

. The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge who recommended dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed Chi’s petit ion for lack of jurisdiction. Chi filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Chi timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusion s and review the District Court’s factual findings for clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner , 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou

- Ann , Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). We may summarily affirm a District Court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record if the appeal does not raise a substantial question. See I.O.P. 10.6; see al so Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

. “M otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences” on constitutional grounds. Okereke v. United States , 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Although a petitioner may challenge a conviction pursuant to § 2241 where a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective “only where the petiti oner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 22554 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Cradle , 290 F.3d at 538

. This “safety

- valve” exception of § 2255(e) is narrow and applies only in rare circumstances, such as when “an intervening change in statutory interpretation runs the risk that an individual was convicted of conduct that is not a crime, and that change in the law applies retroactively in cases on collater al review.” See Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP , 868 F.3d 170, 179 (3d Cir. 2017)

. Importantly, however,

“ [s] ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one

- year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Cradle , 2 90 F.3d at 539. Here, Chi sought to use his § 2241 petition to relitigate the claim s he raised in his § 2255 motion. T he fact that the District Court did not rule on his § 2255 motion five months after Chi had filed it does not demonstrate that § 2255 was an inadequate means to test the legality of his detention. Moreover, the Eastern District of Texas has already rule d on Chi’s § 2255 motion , which undercuts his argument that the remedy was inadequate

. And, the fact that Chi’s § 2255 motion was denied d oes not render § 2255 an inadequate remedy for relief

. 1 Cradle , 290 F.3d at 539

. Nor did Chi demonstrate that an

1 To the extent that Chi wishes to advance a new claim for relief, he may file an application in the Fifth Circuit for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), (h). We express no opinion on the merits of such an application.5 intervening change in law rendered § 2255 inadequate to challenge his conviction. While he contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uni ted States v. Davis 2 announced a new statutory interpretation that would invalidate his conviction, Chi raised the same claim in his § 2255 motion, and it was rejected on the merits. See Chi , 2021 WL 5260289, at *8. And, insofar as Chi contends that he is actually innocent, see C.A. No. 15 at p. 6, he failed to point to a new rule of law that would render the conduct underlying his conviction non

- criminal. His claim of innocence is thus inadequate to satisfy § 2255(e)’s narrow safe ty

- valve exception

. Accordingly , the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania properly dismissed Chi’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.
In his R ule 59(e) motion , Chi argued that the Magistrate Judge “deliberately distorted and misstated” several of his claims for relief, ECF No. 42 at p. 6 , and the District Court should have corrected i t s misapprehension of his claims. Id. at pp. 6

- 7. ( Chi did, however, agree with the Government’s interpretation of his claims). In denying the motion, the District Court noted that it found no clear errors or manifest injustices in

2 In that case, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019).6 dismissing his § 2241 petition, and again explained that Chi had failed to demonstr ate that his § 2241 claims satisfied § 2255’s safety

- valve exception

. See ECF No. 43. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; IO.P. 10.6.