Court Opinion

ID: 9370457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 19:00:49.45181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.691051
License: Public Domain

CLD-047                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2855
                                       ___________

                                 SIAVOSH HENAREH,
                                            Appellant

                                             v.

                        WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI MEDIUM
                       ____________________________________

                    On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                              (D.C. Civil No. 1-22-cv-00539)
                    District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
                      ____________________________________

         Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
        or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   December 8, 2022
         Before: GREENAWAY, Jr., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed February 13, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Pro se appellant Siavosh Henareh was arrested in Bucharest, Romania, extradited

to the United States, and convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York of conspiracy to import heroin into the United States in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 963. He was sentenced to 210 months in prison (which was later reduced to

198 months). See S.D.N.Y. CR. No. 1:11-cr-00093, ECF Nos. 88 & 154. He obtained

no relief on direct appeal or in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See United States v.

Henareh, 563 F. App’x 808 (2d Cir. 2014) (non-precedential); Henareh v. United States,

No. 11-CR-93, 2018 WL 3462508 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018).

       After other proceedings not relevant here, Henareh filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, his

district of confinement. He argued that he should be released from custody because the

United States lacked authority to arrest him abroad, the prosecution failed to obtain a

proper indictment, the government had financial motivations to incarcerate him, and the

prosecution had never overcome his presumption of innocence. The District Court

dismissed the petition, concluding that Henareh could raise his claims only, if at all, in a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Henareh appealed.1

1
  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s legal conclusions. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290
F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Henareh does not need to obtain a certificate
of appealability to proceed with this appeal. See Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868
F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2017).

                                              2
       We agree with the District Court’s analysis. “Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their

convictions or sentences[.]” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002).

“[U]nder the explicit terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless a § 2255 motion would be

‘inadequate or ineffective,’ a habeas corpus petition under § 2241 cannot be entertained

by the court.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538 (quoting § 2255(e)).

       Henareh presents claims that he either could have raised or did raise in his initial

§ 2255 motion. While the limitations on second or successive § 2255 motions might

prevent him from raising these claims in a new § 2255 motion, that does not make § 2255

inadequate or ineffective. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120.

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir.

L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

                                             3