2007 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 1-10-2007 

# S epul ved a 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 . 06-3147

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_2007

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 2007 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 " S epulve d a v

. S mith" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1785. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1785C L D - 67 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. 06- 3147

______________ GE OR GE S E P UL VE DA, A ppel l ant v. J OSEPH SM I TH

_________________________ 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 vi l N o. 06- 00734) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

___________________________ S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n 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 ovember30, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L , S M ITH and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J anuary10, 2007)

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

________________ P E R C UR I AM I n 1997, i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof R hode I s l and, G eor ge Sepul veda w as convi ct ed of va r i ous R I C O - r el at ed off ens es , i ncl udi ng r acke t eer i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1962( c) , and a vi ol entcr i m e ( m ur der ) i n ai d of2

r acke t eer i ng act i vi t y , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1959. Sepul veda w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . A ft erhi s convi ct i on and s ent ence w er e af fi r m ed i n 1999, Sepul veda m o v e d f o r re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h is m o tio n w a s d e n ied , as w e re a su b se q u e n t § 2241 pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus and a coram no bis pet i t i on. M or e r ece nt l y , t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Fi r s tC i r cui tdeni ed Sepul veda’ s appl i cat i on for a u th o ri z a tio n to f

ile 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 . S e p u lv e d a , w h o is c u rre n tlyin c a rc e ra ted a t th e U n ited S tate s P e n iten tiary i n L e w isb u rg , P e n n sy lv a n ia, h a s f iled a n o th e r p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to § 2241 w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thatpet i t i on, and Sepul veda a ppeal ed. I n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on, Sepul veda a r gues that§ 2255 w oul d be an i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve r emedybeca us e hi s cl ai m i s notbas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence ora new ru le o f c o n stitu tio n a l law . In ste a d , h e a lleg e s th a t h e w a s u n a b le to ra ise a c laim th a t h is j ur yw as nots el ect ed fr om a r epr es ent at i ve cr os s s ect i on of the comm uni t y( and thatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bynotconduct i ng a hea r i ng on t hi s i s s ue) i n hi s pr i or§ 2255 m ot i on b e c a u se th e c e n su s s tatistic s n e c e ss a ryto su p p o rt su c h a c laim w e re n o t av a ilab le u n til aft erhi s i ni t i al § 2255 m ot i on w as due. H e furt hercont ends thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve bec aus e he f

ai l ed t o r eques tfee s forexperti nves t i gat i on w or k and ce ns us s ta tis tic s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 0 0 6 A . M o ti o n s p u rsua n t t o § 2 2 5 5 “a re the p resu m p ti v e m ea n s b yw h ich f ed era l pri so n ers3

can c hal l enge thei rconvi ct i ons ors ent ence s thatar e al l egedl yi n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on. ” O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . U nl es s a § 2255 mot i on w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve, ” a ha beas corpus p e tit io n u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 c a n n o t b e e n ter tain e d b yth e c o u rt. C ra d le v . U n ited S tate s e x re l. M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( percur i am). Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pe t i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eeti t s s t r i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s . See I n r e D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . R ather , the

“ sa f e ty -v a lv e ” p ro v id e d u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 is e x tre m e lyn a rro w , an d h a s b e e n h e ld to a p p lyin u n u su a l situ a tio n s, su c h a s th o se in w h ich a p riso n e r h a s h a d n o p rio r o p p o rtu n ityto chal l enge hi s convi ct i on foract i ons l at erdeemed t o be non- cr i m i nal byan i nt erveni ng change i n l aw . See O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120. Sepul veda’ s cl ai m s fal l w i t hi n t he purvi ew of § 2255 bec aus e theychal l enge the val i di t yof hi s convi ct i on. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatSepul veda ha s not demonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s an “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” r emedyunderthe ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e. See C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538 ( “I ti s the i neff i cac yof the re m e d y , n o t th e p e rs o n a l in a b ility to u s e it, th a t is d e te rm in a tiv e ” ). Fort hes e r eas ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Sepul veda’ s § 2241 p e titio n . W e w ill, th e re f o re , s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.