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 11-30-2005 

# S i l ves tre v . Y o s 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 . 05-3800

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 " S i lve s tr e v . Y os t " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 196. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/196B P S- 41 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 S. 05- 3800 & 05- 4169

________ FELI PE S I LVESTRE, A ppel l ant

v. J OH N Y OST, W AR DEN

_______________________________________ A p p ea ls Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C i vil N o. 05 -cv- 00 24 6J) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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

N ovember3, 2005 B E FO R E : R E N D E L L , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed : N ovember30, 2005)

________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________Si l ves tr e al s o appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o al t eroramend 1 j udgm entpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 59( e) , N o. 05- 4169. T he C l erk of the C our thas con sol i dated these t w o ap peals for al l pu rposes. 2 P E R C UR I AM Fel i pe Si l ves tr e appe al s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on for a w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. B eca us e Si l ves tr e’ s appea l pr es ent s no 1 s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l gr antthe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance . O n D ece m ber21, 1993, the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ct o f N e w Y o r k s e n t e n c e d S i l v e s tr e t o 2 6 2 m o n th s i n p r i s o n f o l l o w i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n b y a ju ry f o r c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te c ra c k c o c a in e a n d h e ro in in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui taff i r m ed. U ni t ed St at es v. S ilv e stre , 3 3 F .3 d 4 9 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). In Ja n u a ry1 9 9 9 , S ilv e stre f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n the Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k. O n J une 30, 1999, the s ent enci ng courtdi s m i s s ed Si l ves tr e’ s m ot i on as unt i m el y . Si l ves tr e v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 6 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 9 ). O n N ovember16, 2001, Si l ves tr e fi l ed hi s fi r s tpet i t i on forhabea s corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a cha l l engi ng hi s s ent ence under A pp rendi v. N ew Jer sey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (200 0). T he D i stri ctC ou rttreat ed the peti t i on as a m ot i on under§ 2255 and tr ans ferr ed i tt o the Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k. Si l ves t r e v. S h e a rin , N o . 0 0 -0 3 0 9 (W .D . P a . F e b . 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 ). T h e S o u th e rn D istric t o f N e w Y o rk , in tu rn , tr a n s f

e r r e d i tt o th e S e c o n d Ci r c u i t , S i l v e s tr e v . S h e a r i n , No . 0 1 - 5 7 0 7 ( S . D. N. Y.3

J une 29, 2001) , w hi ch deni ed Si l ves tr e perm i s s i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. Si l ves tr e v. Shear i n, N o. 01- 3764 ( 2d C i r . Feb. 24, 2004) . O n February25, 2005, Si l ves tr e aga i n as ked the courtof appe al s forperm i s s i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, thi s t i m e bas ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i ons i n B l akel yv. W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ), a n d U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). T he courtof appe al s deni ed Si l ves tr e perm i s s i on, fi ndi ng thatthe rul e i n B ookerdi d not a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to h is c a s e . S ilv e s tr e v . S h e a ri n , N o . 0 5 -0 8 4 1 (2 d C ir . M a r. 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). O n M ay2, 2005, Si l ves tr e fi l ed the curr enthabea s corpus pet i t i on under§ 2241, r ai s i ng the s ame B ookercl ai m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatSi l ves tr e coul d not p ro c e e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 a n d d is m is s e d h is p e titio n a s a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . Si l ves tr e fi l ed a mot i on t o amend oral t erthe j udgm entunderFed. R . C i v. P. 59( e) , w hi ch w as deni ed. H e fi l ed t i m el ynot i ces of appe al fr om both rul i ngs , and the appe al s have b e e n c o n s o lid a te d f

o r a ll p u rp o s e s . G ener al l y , a cha l l enge t o t he val i di tyof a f eder al convi ct i on ors ent ence m us tbe b ro u g h t in a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S e e D a v is v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 1 7 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 3 (1 9 7 4 ). A f e d e ra l p riso n e r m a yp ro c e e d u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 o n lyif th e re m e d yp ro v id e d b y§ 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r in e f

f e c tiv e to tes t th e leg a lityo f h is d e ten tio n . S e e § 2 2 5 5 ; In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e o n ly w h e re th e p e tit io n e r d e m o n stra tes th a t so m e lim itatio n o f sc o p e o r p ro c e d u re w o u ld p re v e n t a § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g f ro m a f f o rd in g h im a f

u ll h e a rin g a n d a d

ju d ica tio n o f

h isSi l ves tr e w as advi s ed thatthi s C our tw oul d cons i derw hethert o i s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of 2 appea l abi l i ty . B eca us e thi s pet i t i on i s br oughtunder§ 2241, no cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i tyi s r equi r ed. See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) ; Sugar m an v. Pi t zer , 170 F. 3d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 4 6 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). cl ai m s . ” 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) . Sect i on 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 m e re lyb e c a u se th e p e tit io n e r w a s d e n ied re lief o r is u n a b le to m e e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts f o r f ilin g a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n . Id . a t 5 3 9 . I n O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 121 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , w e hel d that§ 2255 i s n o ti n a d e q u a t e o ri n e f f e c t i v e f o rp r i s o n e r s s e e k i n g t o r a i s e A p p r e n d i c l a i m s . S i m i l a r l y, § 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o r ai s e a c l ai m underB ookerorB l akel y , eac h of w hi ch i s an ext ens i on of A ppr endi . Si l ves tr e’ s pet i t i on does notfal l w i thi n the narr ow e x c e p t i o n o f

Do r s a i n v i l . Un l i k e th e “ u n u s u a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” i n Do r s a i n v i l , th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n B ookerand B l akel ydi d notdecr i m i nal i ze the conduc tforw hi ch S ilv e s tr e w a s c o n v ic te d . S e e O k e re k e , 3 0 7 F .3 d a t 2 5 0 . In sh o rt, u p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f S ilv e stre ’s p e tit io n a n d “ W ritten A rg u m e n ts O ppos i ng Sum m aryA ct i on, ” w e conc l ude thathi s appea l pr es ent s us w i th no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See Thi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. A ccor di ngl y , w e gr antthe G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryaf firm an ce an d w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 2