Wills v. Smith , 178 F. App'x 123 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-25-2006
Wills v. Smith
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3336
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Wills v. Smith" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1222.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1222
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3336
__________________________
CHRISTOPHER WILLS,
Appellant
vs.
JOSEPH V. SMITH,
Warden, Lewisburg Federal Prison
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02328)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 21, 2006
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed April 25, 2006
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Christopher Wills, appeals the order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction to review the final
decision of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For essentially the reasons
set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, as well as the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation which it adopted, we will affirm the
District Court’s order of dismissal.
Wills is a federal prisoner incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg. In 1999, the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced Wills to two
concurrent terms of 110 months imprisonment and a consecutive 60 month term on his
plea of guilty to one count each of robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, carjacking in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and use of a firearm in relation to the carjacking in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court denied cert., 531 U.S. 1103 (2001).
Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to modify his sentence with a motion filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), see United States v. Wills, 34 Fed. Appx. 126 (4 th Cir.
2002), Wills filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging, inter
alia, that he was actually innocent of the carjacking offense because the evidence did not
satisfy the intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. The sentencing court denied Wills’ § 2255
motion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on appeal, United
States v. Wills, 46 Fed. Appx. 703 (4 th Cir. 2002), and the Supreme Court denied cert.
Wills v. United States, 539 U.S. 909 (2003). The sentencing court likewise denied Wills’
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), wherein Wills relied on allegedly “newly
discovered” documentary evidence in an attempt to establish his innocence. Once again,
that decision was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Wills, 104 Fed. Appx. 294 (4 th Cir.
2
2004). To the extent Wills’ notice of appeal or appellate brief could be construed as an
application for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244 and 2255, the Court of Appeals denied the request. Id.
Wills then filed the underlying petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting primarily
that the sentencing court’s erroneous construction of the challenge he raised in his § 2255
motion to the carjacking conviction rendered those proceedings defective and inadequate.
Once again asserting a claim of “actual innocence” based on a 1994 amendment to the
carjacking statute and on a report issued by a firearms examiner in April 1996, Wills
contends that he should be permitted to proceed with a § 2241 petition challenging his
carjacking conviction. Wills’ petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge who issued a
Report recommending that it be dismissed. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation over appellant’s objections, the District Court found that Wills’ petition
challenging his conviction and sentence falls under § 2255, and that § 2255 is not
rendered inadequate or ineffective merely by his inability to meet the stringent
requirements for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the District
Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. This timely appeal followed.
Our review of the District Court’s decision to dismiss Wills’ § 2241 petition
is plenary. See Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We agree
with the District Court that Wills has not demonstrated that § 2255 is inadequate or
3
ineffective in the instant case.
A § 2255 motion is, of course, the presumptive means for a federal prisoner
to challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence, unless such a motion would be
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Okereke v. United States,
307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As the District Court correctly
concluded, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior motion has been
unsuccessful or a petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements for
filing a second or successive § 2255 motion under AEDPA. Id. at 120-21; Cradle, 290
F.3d at 538-39. Wills’ reliance on a claim of actual innocence and on a claim involving
an amendment to the carjacking statute that went into effect prior to his conviction in an
attempt to circumvent the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 is unavailing, and amounts to
little more than an end run around the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions
affirming the sentencing court’s denial of his motions filed pursuant to § 2255 and Rule
60(b), and its decision denying his application for authorization to file a second § 2255
motion.
We agree that Wills’ claims are merely a restatement of the substance of his
§ 2255 claims under a different heading. Because Wills had a reasonable opportunity to
raise his claims (and any issue as to the proper construction of those claims), including his
“actual innocence” contention, in a § 2255 proceeding before the Unites States District
Court for the District of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and because
4
his claims are not based on an intervening interpretation of the statutory provisions under
which he was convicted, he may not now seek relief through the filing of a § 2241
petition. The District Court, thus, did not err in dismissing Wills’ petition and we will
affirm the District Court’s judgment.
5