Opinion ID: 6346167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Conviction Motions and Petitions

Text: In 2007, Santiago ﬁled his ﬁrst motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was unsuccessful. Santiago v. United States, No. 07-253, 2008 WL 1991627 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2008). In 2018 and 2019, Santiago also sought relief in related § 2241 and § 2255 actions, respectively, asserting that Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), 4 No. 20-2665 meant that his sentence had been enhanced improperly because Hobbs Act robbery should no longer qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Third Circuit granted Santiago leave to pursue a successive § 2255 motion on that issue, and his motion was pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time of this appeal. A related § 2241 petition that he ﬁled in the Northern District of West Virginia was dismissed. Santiago v. Coakley, No. 3:18-cv-110, 2018 WL 5569429, at –7 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 4, 2018). These other postconviction actions are not related to the issue before us, however. More recently, the Western District of Virginia dismissed another § 2241 petition raising the same Rehaif issue presented here, concluding that Santiago could not relitigate in that district the same challenge he has brought in this case. Santiago v. Warden, No. 7:20-cv-00648, 2022 WL 891970 (W.D. Va. March 25, 2022).