2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-17-2013

Guillermo Ruiz v. Bryan Bledsoe

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2038

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Guillermo Ruiz v. Bryan Bledsoe" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1365.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1365
CLD-080 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2038

___________

GUILLERMO RUIZ,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-00106)

District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 28, 2012

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 17, 2013)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Guillermo Ruiz appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his habeas petition filed pursuant to 
2

28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the judgment of 

the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

In 1998, Ruiz was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of ammunition 

that had moved in interstate commerce), and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i) (possession of a silencer 

without a serial number). At sentencing, the District Court classified Ruiz as a career 

offender under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)1, based on 

three prior Florida state court convictions.2 He was sentenced to 312 months of 

imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his 

conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Ruiz, 253 F.3d 634 (11th 

Cir. 2001). Ruiz then filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Southern

District of Florida. The motion was dismissed as time-barred, and the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. 

Ruiz filed the instant § 2241 petition in January 2012, arguing that his sentence 

enhancement as a career offender is unlawful. Specifically, he claims that the federal 

 

1

Section 924(e)(1) provides for an enhanced sentence “[i]n the case of a person who 

violates [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)] and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony 

or serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

2

The documents submitted by Ruiz indicate that his ACCA enhancement was premised 

upon two 1993 burglary convictions, and a third 1995 conviction for grand theft, burglary 

with assault, and kidnapping. (See Dist. Ct. Dkt. #1, p. 20.)
3

sentencing court acted improperly by using a “non-existent offense” or a non-qualifying 

predicate state conviction which resulted from a nolo contendere plea as a basis for 

imposing the ACCA enhancement. Ruiz contends that his argument should be reviewed 

on the basis of Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (holding that driving under 

influence conviction under New Mexico law is not a violent felony under ACCA). The 

District Court dismissed the petition, holding that Ruiz failed to demonstrate that a 

motion under § 2255 would be an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Ruiz filed a timely 

notice of appeal.3 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s legal conclusions. Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 314 (3d 

Cir. 2007). A motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is the 

presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or 

sentence. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A petitioner can 

seek relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d 

Cir. 1997). A § 2255 motion is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because the 

petitioner cannot meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke, 307 

 

3 While the appeal was pending, the District Court denied Ruiz’s timely motion for 

reconsideration of its order. However, because Ruiz did not file a newer amended notice 

of appeal after that order issued, the issue of reconsideration is not before this Court. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664, 668 (3d Cir. 
4

F.3d at 120, or because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle v. United States 

ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Rather, the “safety valve” 

provided under § 2255 is extremely narrow and has been held to apply only in unusual 

situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his 

conviction for actions later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in law. 

Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). For example, in 

Dorsainvil, we allowed the petitioner to proceed under § 2241 because an intervening 

change in the law decriminalized conduct for which he had been convicted, and he had no 

earlier opportunity to challenge that conviction. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251.

Ruiz has not shown that a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective. As 

the District Court noted, Ruiz essentially raises the claim that he presented in his original 

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Ruiz, S.D. Fla. 03-cv-21621, Motion to Vacate. 

Section 2255 is not inadequate to test the legality of that claim merely because the 

sentencing court dismissed Ruiz’s § 2255 motion as time-barred. See Cradle, 290 F.3d at 

539.

Although Ruiz argues, based on Supreme Court precedent issued after his § 2255 

motion was adjudicated, that he should not have been subject to the career offender 

enhancement, he has not cited any case which renders his predicate offenses nonqualifying for purposes of the ACCA. In Begay, the Supreme Court addressed the 

definition of “violent felony” under the ACCA, which is analogous to the definition of 
5

“crime of violence” in the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Polk, 577 F.3d 

515, 519 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009). In doing so, the Court held that a violent felony must be 

“roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed” to burglary, arson, extortion, 

or crimes involving the use of explosives. See Begay, 553 U.S. at 142-43. As a result, 

the petitioner’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol did not qualify as a 

violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. Id. at 139. Ruiz’s sentence was not enhanced 

based on such a conviction and Begay is therefore inapplicable. 

In sum, the exception identified in Dorsainvil is not present here, and Ruiz may 

not evade the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 by seeking relief under § 2241. 

Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the judgment of 

the District Court.4 Ruiz’s motions filed in connection with this appeal are denied. 

 

4 We also agree with the District Court that § 2241 does not provide Ruiz with a vehicle 

by which to raise claims that he has been denied adequate access to his legal materials 

and the prison law library. Such claims must be raised in a civil rights action. See 

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).