United States v. Kareem Millhouse ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • ALD-189                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-4014
    ___________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    KAREEM MILLHOUSE,
    Appellant
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:06-cr-00397-001)
    District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    May 7, 2015
    Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: June 3, 2015)
    ________________
    OPINION*
    ________________
    PER CURIAM
    Kareem Millhouse, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
    In 2007, Millhouse was convicted in a bench trial of attempted aggravated sexual
    abuse, attempted sexual abuse, attempted escape, assault, and possession of a dangerous
    weapon in a federal facility.1 He was sentenced to 300 months in prison, and we
    affirmed. United States v. Millhouse, 317 F. App’x 201, 202 (3d Cir. 2009). Millhouse
    subsequently filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. It does not
    appear that he sought a certificate of appealability regarding that decision.
    In 2014, Millhouse filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming
    that he is actually innocent of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, assault, and escape
    because those offenses were not included in the indictment by virtue of the fact that he
    was indicted on attempted offenses. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of
    jurisdiction, concluding that (1) the claim could be raised only, if at all, in a § 2255
    motion, and (2) Millhouse had not obtained leave to file a second § 2255 motion. This
    appeal followed.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary
    review over the District Court’s legal conclusions. See Cradle v. United States ex rel.
    1
    The amended judgment reflects that Millhouse was convicted of aggravated sexual
    abuse, sexual abuse, and escape. United States v. Millhouse, No. 2:06-cr-00397 (E.D. Pa.
    Feb. 20, 2008), ECF No. 145. However, he was indicted on attempted offenses, ECF No.
    12, and the trial judge’s opinions regarding a post-conviction motion for a new trial, ECF
    No. 123, and Millhouse’s § 2255 motion, ECF No. 226, state that he was convicted of
    attempted offenses. This discrepancy is the basis for Millhouse’s current challenge.
    2
    Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We agree with the District Court
    that Millhouse’s § 2241petition was not viable. He challenged the validity of his
    convictions, and “[m]otions 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). As the District Court noted, Millhouse could proceed with a § 2255 motion only
    with authorization from this Court – something he had not obtained. See Robinson v.
    Johnson, 
    313 F.3d 128
    , 139 (3d Cir. 2002).
    Although a petitioner may challenge a conviction pursuant § 2241 if a § 2255
    motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” this exception applies only in rare
    circumstances. In In re Dorsainvil, 
    119 F.3d 245
    , 251-52 (3d Cir. 1997), we recognized
    that a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective” where an intervening change
    in the law decriminalized the conduct for which the petitioner had been convicted.
    Millhouse, however, cannot avail himself of this exception. The conduct underlying his
    convictions is still a crime, and Millhouse does not argue otherwise. Nor does his
    contention of actual innocence, which is based solely on a ministerial discrepancy
    between certain documents in the record, constitute an extraordinary circumstance
    justifying the use of § 2241. See 
    Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539
    . In sum, Millhouse may not use
    § 2241 to evade the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255. 
    Id. Accordingly, we
    will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4014

Judges: Rendell, Chagares, Scirica

Filed Date: 6/3/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024