2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-10-2013

James McIntosh v. J. T. Shartle

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1060

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

"James McIntosh v. J. T. Shartle" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 845.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/845
CLD-213 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1060

___________

JAMES MCINTOSH, a/k/a Karim Bey

v.

J. T. SHARTLE

James McIntosh, 

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-02240)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

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

April 25, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 10, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

In March 1998, James McIntosh was sentenced as a career offender to 322 months 

in prison after being convicted of robbery and a firearm charge. We affirmed his 

conviction on appeal but remanded for resentencing. McIntosh was again sentenced to 

322 months as a career offender and appealed. We affirmed his sentence. In 2004, 

McIntosh filed an unsuccessful motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Most recently, 

McIntosh filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court granted the 

Appellee’s motion to dismiss the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, and McIntosh 

filed a timely notice of appeal.

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

the District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d 

Cir. 2002). In his § 2241 petition, McIntosh argued that he was actually innocent of 

being a career offender. He contended that under Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 

(2008), his state court conviction for simple assault did not qualify as a predicate offense

for career offender status, as it was not a crime of violence. 

Under the explicit terms of § 2255, a § 2241 petition cannot be entertained by a 

court unless a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 

538. We have explained: 

A § 2255 motion 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. It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the 

personal inability to use it, that is determinative. Section 2255 is not 

inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not 
3

grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner 

is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended 

§ 2255. 

Id. at 538-39 (citations omitted). McIntosh has not shown that a § 2255 motion would be 

inadequate or ineffective. He argues that our decision in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 

(3d Cir. 1997), allows him to proceed via § 2241 because he did not have an earlier 

opportunity to raise this claim. In Dorsainvil, we held that a defendant may proceed via 

§ 2241 when a subsequent statutory interpretation renders the defendant’s conduct no 

longer criminal. Id. at 251. Here, McIntosh is challenging his designation as a career 

offender. Thus, he does not fall within the exception created in Dorsainvil and may not 

proceed under § 2241. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120–21 (3d Cir. 

2002) (holding that a petitioner is barred from proceeding under § 2241 because his 

argument was based on sentencing and did not render the crime he was convicted of not 

criminal).

Moreover, even if McIntosh were able to raise this claim via a § 2241 petition, it 

would be without merit. As noted by the District Court, we have already determined that 

McIntosh’s 1984 simple assault conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. In 2009, 

McIntosh filed a motion to recall the mandate in his direct criminal appeal. See United 

States v. McIntosh, C.A. No. 99-1678. We denied the motion because McIntosh had 

pleaded guilty to “intentionally, knowingly and recklessly causing bodily injury to 
4

others.” Thus, his simple assault conviction involved purposeful conduct and was still a 

crime of violence. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 203, 212 (3d Cir. 2009).

For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.