2006 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 4-25-2006 

# W i ll s v . S mith 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 . 05-3336

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_2006

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 2006 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 " W i ll s v . S mith" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1222. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1222NOT 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 . 05- 3336

__________________________ 

### CHRI STOPHER W I LLS, Appe l l ant

v s. J OS EP H V . SM I TH , W ar de n, Le wi s burg Fe de r a lPri s on

____________________________________ 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02328) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2006 Be f o r e : FI SHER, ALD I SERT a n d W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

Fi l ed A pr i l 25, 2006

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l ant , C hr i s t opherW i l l s , appea l s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C 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 pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the fi nal deci s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fores s ent i al l ythe r eas ons s etfor th i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum O pi ni on and O r der , as w el l as the2

M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on w hi ch i tadopt ed, w e w i l l aff i r m the D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f d ism iss a l. W i l l s i s a fe der al pr i s oneri ncar cer at ed atU SP-Lew i s bur g. I n 1999, the Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c tCo u r tf o rth e Di s tr i c to f

M a ry l a n d s e n t e n c e d Wi l l s t o two c o n c u rre n t term s o f

1 1 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t an d a c o n se c u tiv e 6 0 m o n th ter m o n h is p lea o f g u iltyto o n e c o u n t ea c h o f ro b b e ryin v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 , ca rja c k in g in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 9 , an d u se o f a f ire a rm in re latio n to th e c a rja c k in g in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ). T h e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F o u rth C i r cui tdi s m i s s ed hi s appea l , and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed c e rt. , 5 3 1 U .S . 1 1 0 3 (2 0 0 1 ). H avi ng been uns ucce s s ful i n hi s att empt t o m odi fyhi s s ent ence w i th a mot i on fi l ed p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c), see U n it ed S tat es v . W il ls, 3 4 F ed . A p p x . 1 2 6 (4 C ir . th 2002) , W i l l s fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255 al l egi ng, i nt er al i a, thathe w as actual l yi nnocentof the ca r j acki ng offe ns e bec aus e the evi dence di d not s at i s fythe i nt entel ementof 18 U . S. C . § 2119. T he s ent enci ng courtdeni ed W i l l s ’ § 2255 m ot i on, the Four th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed thatdeci s i on on appea l , U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l s , 46 Fed. A ppx. 703 ( 4 C i r . 2002) , and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert . th W i l l s v. U nit ed S t at es, 53 9 U . S . 90 9 (200 3). T he sentenci ng cou rtl i kew i se denied W i l l s’ m o tio n f iled p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ), w h e re in W ill s re lied o n a lleg e d ly“ n e w ly di s cover ed” doc um ent aryevi dence i n an att empt t o es t abl i s h hi s i nnocenc e. O nce a gai n, that d ec isi o n w as a ff

irm ed o n ap p ea l. U n it ed S tat es v . W il ls, 1 0 4 F ed . A p p x . 2 9 4 (4 C ir . th3

2004) . T o t he ext entW i l l s ’ not i ce of appea l orappel l at e br i ef c oul d be cons trued as an a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra u th o r i z a t i o n t o f

i l e a s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. §§ 2244 and 2255, the C our tof A ppeal s deni ed the r eques t . I d.

W i l l s then fi l ed the under l y i ng pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n t he U n ited S tate s D istric t 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, a ss e rtin g p rim a rily thatthe s ent enci ng court ’ s err oneous cons truct i on of the cha l l enge he r ai s ed i n hi s § 2255 m o tio n to th e c a rj a c k in g c o n v ic tio n re n d e re d th o s e p ro c e e d in g s d e f e c tiv e a n d in a d e q u a te . O nce a gai n as s ert i ng a cl ai m of “a ctual i nnocenc e” ba s ed on a 1994 a m endmentt o the c a rja c k in g sta tu te a n d o n a re p o rt issu e d b ya f ire a rm s e x a m in e r in A p ril 1 9 9 6 , W ill s c o n ten d s th a t h e sh o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to p ro c e e d w ith a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n c h a llen g in g h is car j acki ng convi ct i on. W i l l s ’ pet i t i on w as r efe rr ed t o a M agi s tr at e J udge w ho i s s ued a R eportr ecomm endi ng thati tbe di s m i s s ed. A dopt i ng the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on overappel l ant ’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatW i l l s ’ pet i t i on chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence fal l s under§ 2255, and that§ 2255 i s not r ender ed i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve mer el ybyhi s i nabi l i tyt o m eetthe s tr i ngent r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s W i l l s ’ § 2241 pet i t i on i s pl enary . See C r adl e v. U . S. ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatW i l l s has notdemonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s i nadequa t e or4

i neff ect i ve i n t he i ns t antcas e. A § 2255 m ot i on i s , of cour s e, the pr es um pt i ve means fora fe der al pr i s oner t o chal l enge the val i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence , unl es s s uch a mot i on w oul d be “i nad equ at e or i neff

ect i ve to t estthe legal i tyof h i s det enti on . ” O kereke v . U nit ed S t at es, 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded, § 2255 i s 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 ora pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eetthe s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s for fi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on underA E D PA . I d. at120- 21; C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538- 39. W i l l s ’ r el i ance on a cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e and on a cl ai m i nvol vi ng an amendm entt o t he ca r j acki ng s t atut e thatw enti nt o eff ectpr i ort o hi s convi ct i on i n an a ttem p t to c irc u m v e n t th e g a tek e e p in g p ro v isio n s o f § 2 2 5 5 is u n a v a ili n g , an d a m o u n ts to l i t t l e more than an e nd run ar ound t he Four th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i ons a f f irm in g th e se n ten c in g c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n s f

iled p u rsu a n t to § 2 2 5 5 a n d R u le 60( b) , and i t s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd § 2255 m ot i on. W e a g re e th a t W ill s’ c laim s a re m e re lya re sta tem e n t o f th e su b sta n c e o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 c laim s u n d e r a d if f e re n t h e a d in g . B e c a u se W ill s h a d a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto ra ise h is c laim s (a n d a n yiss u e a s to th e p ro p e r c o n stru c tio n o f th o se c laim s), in c lu d in g h is “ac tual i nnocenc e” c ont ent i on, i n a § 2255 pr ocee di ng befor e the U ni t es St at es D i s tr i ct C ou rtfor the D i stri ctof M ary l and and the F ou rth C i rcui tC ou rtof A pp eal s, and becau se5

hi s cl ai m s ar e notbas ed on an i nt er veni ngi nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut orypr ovi s i ons under w hi ch he w as convi ct ed, he maynotnow s eek r el i ef thr ough the fi l i ng of a § 2241 p e tit io n . T h e D istric t C o u rt, th u s, d id n o t er r in d ism iss in g W ill s’ p e tit io n a n d w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.