2008 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 11-14-2008 

# C lint on B u sh v

. D a vid Elb e r t 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 . 08-2929

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_2008

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 2008 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 " C l int on B ush v

. D a vid Elbe r t " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 227. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/2271

H L D -1 ( O ct ober 2008) 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. 08- 2929

___________ CL I NT ON B US H, A ppel l ant vs. DAV I D J . EL BER T

____________________________________ 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. 08- cv- 00217) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 O C T O B E R 31, 2008 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: N ovember14, 2008 )

_____________ OP I NI ON

_____________ P E R C U R I A M.

C l i nt on B us h, 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 tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 B u sh p lead ed g u il tyin D ec em b er 1 9 9 8 in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e E a s t e r n D i s tr i c to f P e n n s yl v a n i a t o o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) , and w as s ent ence d t o 180 m onths im p riso n m e n t w ith a f

iv e y e a r p e rio d o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se . B u sh a p p a re n tlyw a iv e d h is appel l at e r i ght s . I n M ar ch 2000, he fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 al l egi ng thatcouns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . N ew couns el w as appoi nt ed and a n amended m ot i on addi ng a cl ai m bas ed on A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 503 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , w as fi l ed in Ja n u aryo f th e f

o ll o w ing y ea r. A fter an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t B u sh ’s c laim s w e re w ith o u t m e rit an d d e n ied th e m o tio n . B u sh tim e ly appea l ed. T hi s C our tdeni ed hi s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n an or der issue d o n S ep tem b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , see C . A . N o . 0 1 -38 3 9 , an d the S u p rem e C o u rt s ubs equent l ydeni ed hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i . B us h then s oughtr el i ef f r om ju d g m e n t in a m o tio n f

iled p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )(6 ) in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 3 . In h is R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, B us h once a gai n cl ai m ed thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel – b o th d u ri n g h is i n it ial p roc ee d ing s an d at th e c o ll ateral ch all en g e stag e. B u sh ’s m ot i on far ed no bett erthan hi s § 2255 m ot i on, and w as deni ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n an order ent ered on O ct ob er 1, 20 03 . A ft er unsuccessfull yseeki ng reconsi derat i on , B ush appea l ed. W e deni ed hi s m ot i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n an or deri s s ued on M ay28, 2004. See C . A . N o. 03- 4027.3 U n d eterred , B u sh there af ter sou g h t r eli ef

in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r t h e M id d le D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia b yf

ilin g a h a b e a s p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2241 as s ert i ng thathi s fede r al s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed pur s uantt o the p ro v isio n s o f

th e A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A c t (“ A C C A ” ). B e c a u se B u sh f a iled to es t abl i s h thathi s r emedyunder§ 2255 w as i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve underthe s t andar ds announce d i n I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an o rd e r o n Ju ly2 0 , 2 0 0 5 d ism iss in g th e p e tit io n w ith o u t p re ju d ice to B u sh ’s d e c isio n a s to w h e th e r to re a ss e rt h is c laim in e ith e r a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n o r a n a p p lica tio n se e k in g lea v e to fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. B us h di d nei therand, i ns t ead, r eturned t o t he E astern D istri ct w h ere h e f il ed a m o ti o n “to c o rrect j u d g m en t and co m m itm en t ord er” s eeki ng t o have the D i s tr i ctC our t– purpor t edl ypur s uantt o R ul e 36 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e – corr ectthe j udgm entor dert o r efl ectthe r eas on w hyhe r ece i ved a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 180 m onths i ns t ead of 120 m onths . I n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 21, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed B us h’ s m ot i on not i ng thathe w as s ubj ectt o a t erm of im pri sonm ent of no tl ess than 18 0 m on ths un der 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e) (1) . B ush a p p e a le d a n d w e s u m m a ri ly af f ir m e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r o n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . See C . A . N o. 07- 1974.

N o t to b e d isc o u ra g e d , B u sh re tu rn e d to th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia l es s than tw o m onths l at erw i th a s econd § 2241 pe t i t i on s eeki ng i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om c o n f in e m e n t. B u sh c o n tin u e d w ith h is c h a llen g e to th e 1 8 0 -m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t,4

a rg u in g th a t th e m a x im u m se n ten c e f o r a § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) c o n v ictio n is 1 2 0 m o n th s a n d th a t, there fo re, his sen tenc e is i ll eg al. A s w ith h is prev iou s § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt d eterm ined that B u sh fa il ed to es tablish tha t his rem ed yu n d er § 2 2 5 5 is i n ad eq u ate o r i neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof hi s cont i nued det ent i on, and thus di s m i s s ed i tw i thout p re ju d ice to h is d e c isio n to e ith e r f ile a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n o r to se e k lea v e f ro m th is C o u rt to fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fores s ent i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or derof d ism iss a l. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded, a § 2255 mot i on i s the pr es um pt i ve means fora fe der al pr i s onert o chal l enge the val i di tyof a c onvi ct i on or s ent ence , unl es s s uch a mot i on w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof h i s d e t e n t i o n . ” Ok e r e k e v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255 ¶ 5. A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yw hen “s om e l i m i t at i on of s c o p e o r p ro c e d u re ” p re v e n ts a m o v a n t f ro m re c e iv in g a n a d

ju d ic a tio n o f

h is c la im . C ra d le v . U n ited S tate s e x re l. M in e r, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 is noti nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pr i orm ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful or beca us e B us h i s unabl e t o m eetthe s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on underthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) . O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. See al s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539.T he “s afe tyval ve” pr ovi ded under§ 2255 i s extr emel ynarr ow and has been

hel d t o appl yi n unus ual s i tuat i ons , s uch as thos e i n w hi ch a pr i s onerhas had no pr i or oppor tuni tyt o chal l enge hi s convi ct i on fora cr i m e l at erdeemed t o be non- cr i m i nal b ec au se o f a n interve n ing ch an g e in th e law . S ee O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 (cit ing In re D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d at251) . Such i s notthe ca s e her e. B us h m akes no al l egat i on thathe i s actual l yi nnocentof the cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e agr ee w i th the D i s t r i ct C our tthatB us h’ s cl ai m i s cl ear l ya cha l l enge t o the l egal i tyof the cr i m i nal s ent ence im p o se d b yth e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia in U n it ed S tat es v . B u sh , E . D . P a. C ri m . N o . 9 8 -cr-00 3 7 0 . T h e e x ce p ti o n iden ti fied in In re D o rsa in v il i s s im p lyin a p p lica b le, a n d B u sh m a yn o t ev a d e th e g a tek e e p in g re q u ire m e n ts of § 2255 bys eeki ng r el i ef unde r§ 2241.

B ec au se th e § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n w as p rop erlyd ism issed an d the D istri ct C o u rt co m m itted n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in d en y ing B u sh ’s reco n side rati o n m o ti o n , see M ax ’s S e a f o o d C a f é v . Q u in ter o s, 1 7 6 F .3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is pr es ent ed bythi s appea l . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derof di s m i s s al w i l l be aff i r m ed. See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. B us h’ s “Ex P art e Speci al M ot i on. . . ” i s deni ed.



### 5