HLD-060 (December 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2883

___________

CLIFFORD FAKE,

Appellant

v.

JOHN YOST, WARDEN, F.C.I. Loretto

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-00096)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to

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

December 29, 2010

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judges, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed January 27, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Clifford Fake appeals pro se from an order dismissing his petition filed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we 

will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. 
2

As the parties are familiar with the background of this case, we will only

summarize those facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal. On April 20, 2006, in the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania, Clifford Fake pleaded guilty to health care fraud 

resulting in serious bodily injury, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and criminal forfeiture, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C. § 246(c); he was sentenced to 218 

months of imprisonment. Fake appealed his sentence, which was affirmed by this Court.

In November 2008, Fake filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 

U.S.C. § 2555, alleging lack of evidence to convict and ineffectiveness of counsel. Fake 

also claimed that the Government withheld information regarding victims in violation of 

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The District Court denied his motion, finding his 

claims procedurally defaulted or meritless. Fake appealed, and we denied his request for 

a certificate of appealability.

On April 9, 2010, Fake filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, his district of confinement, 

alleging lack of evidence to convict and ineffectiveness of counsel. The District Court 

denied the petition, having concluded that the petition attacked the sentence imposed by 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania and that § 2255 was not an “inadequate or 

ineffective” means to challenge that sentence. Fake appealed. 

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

over the District Court's legal conclusions, and we apply a clearly erroneous standard to 
3

any factual findings. Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per 

curiam).

“Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by 

which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in 

violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 

2002). A petitioner, however, may challenge a conviction pursuant to § 2241 where a § 

2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d 

Cir. 1997). A motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective “only where the 

petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 

2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful 

detention claim.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538. 

Fake has not made such a showing. He simply states that the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania improperly dismissed his § 2255 

motion. A § 2255 motion is “not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing 

court does not grant relief.” Id. at 539. Therefore, the District Court properly denied 

Fake’s § 2241 petition. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.