2009 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 1-16-2009 

# Ant oine N orm an v

. T roy Levi 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 . 08-2944

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ant o ine N orm an v

. T r o y L evi " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2016. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/20161

HLD- 2 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. 08- 2944

___________ ANT OI NE NOR M AN, A ppel l ant vs. T RO Y L E VI

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00962) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

___________________________________ S u b m itte d f

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

D ece m ber31, 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

O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary16, 2009

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

A nt oi ne N or m an, w ho i s curr ent l yconfi ned att he Feder al D et ent i on C ent er in P h il ad elph ia, ap p ea ls an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia d e n y in g h is h a b e a s p e titio n f ile d p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 .2

W e wi l l a f

f i r m. O n Sept ember7, 2007, fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u r tf o rt h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c to f P e n n s yl v a n i a , N o r m a n w a s f o u n d g u i l t y o f

c o n s p i r a c y, bank fr aud, aggr avat ed i dent i t yt heft , and ai di ng and abe t t i ng. W hi l e a s ent enci ng hear i ng w as or i gi nal l ys chedul ed forD ece m ber6, 2007, var i ous j oi ntdefe ns e mot i ons for con t i nu ances w ere fi l ed an d g rant ed. A heari ng t o d et erm i ned t he am ou nt of l oss attri b u table to e ac h o f th e c o -de fe n d an ts w as h eld o n Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , an d N o rm an ’s s ent enci ng w as eventual l ys etforSept ember10, 2008. I n t he meant i m e, on February25, 2008, N or m an fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, w her ei n he cl ai m ed that h is Fo u rth an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere v iolated b ythe P o stal Insp ec tor’s i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch, he ar gued, w as unl aw ful and w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on gi ven the I ns pect or ’ s al l eged f

ai l ur e dur i ng t he G r and J ur ypr ocee di ngs t o es t abl i s h a nexus betw een the cr i m es and the U . S. m ai l . I n an O r derent er ed on J une 20, 2008, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e p e tit io n a f ter c o n c lu d in g th a t N o rm a n ’s c laim s w e re n o t co g n iza b le under§ 2241. N or m an now appea l s t hatdeci s i on.

W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er the ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a), and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the pet i t i on. See O ker eke v . U n it ed S tat es, 30 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

A s pr oper l ynot ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , a cha l l enge t o a fe der al convi ct i on m us tgener al l ybe br oughti n a mot i on t o vaca t e under28 U . S. C . § 2255. See O ker eke,3

307 F. 3d at120. A pr i s onerm aypr ocee d under§ 2241 onl yw her e the r emedypr ovi ded under§ 2255 i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tt he l egal i t yof hi s confi nement . See § 2255( e) ; C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . See a lso P a d ill a v . U n ited S tate s, 4 1 6 F .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 5 -4 2 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 .. . is t he appr opr i at e r emedyfor‘ err or s t hatoccurr ed atorpr i ort o t he s ent enci ng. ’ ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “A § 2255 m ot i on w oul d be i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yi f the pet i t i onercan s how t hata l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr 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 . ” O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120. B eca us e N or m an fa i l ed t o s how t hata § 2255 mot i on w o u ld b e a n in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e v e h icle to p re se n t th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s ra ise d in hi s pet i t i on once hi s di r ectappea l had bee n di s pos ed of, w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ct C our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatt hos e cl ai m s s houl d notbe ent er t ai ned i n t he cont extof a § 2241 pr ocee di ng. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Pi r r o, 104 F. 3d 297, 299 ( 9t h C i r . 1997) (de layin su b m itti n g a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n u n ti l th e d ir ec t app ea l i s reso lved d o es n o t r en d er § 2 2 5 5 inad eq u ate o r i n ef fe cti v e). M or eover , w e fi nd no faul tw i th t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o cons t rue N o rm a n ’s p e tit io n a s a m o tio n u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 , as su c h a m o tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n su b jec t to di s m i s s al as pr ematur e bec aus e i tw as fi l ed pr i ort o s ent enci ng and di r ectappea l . See K a p ra l v . U n ited S tate s, 1 6 6 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 0 -7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 )(a c o llate ra l atta c k is g en era ll yinap p rop ri ate if the p o ssibil ityo f d ir ec t r ev iew rem ains o p en ).A ccor di ngl y , fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatt he appe al does

notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. W e w i l l t her efor e s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he j udgm entof t he D i s t r i ctC our t . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6.

4