Adams v. Schultz , 253 F. App'x 234 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-6-2007
Adams v. Schultz
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2838
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Adams v. Schultz" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 256.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/256
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-9 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07- 2838
___________
TIMOTHY ADAMS,
Appellant
v.
PAUL SCHULTZ, Warden
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02133)
District Judge: Honorable Renee Marie Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 12, 2007
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 6, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Timothy Adams appeals the District Court’s dismissal of a habeas corpus petition
he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons we will affirm.
In 1995 Adams was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina of conspiracy to distribute “crack” cocaine. After the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in 1997 Adams filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 challenging his conviction and sentence. The District Court denied the motion and
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Adams then filed various additional motions challenging his conviction and sentence, all
without success. Once again, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Adams next tried his luck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, filing a Complaint for Independent Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and two
habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. These too were unsuccessful.
Undeterred, in 2007 Adams filed yet another § 2241 petition, this time arguing that
in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), he is actually innocent of the
aggravated substantive offense because the facts on which the enhancement of his
sentence was based were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Adams states,
inter alia, that he resorted to § 2241 because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective in not
providing “a remedy to accommodate a fundamental change in law which shows that
Adams is ‘actually innocent’ of the conviction and sentence.”
The District Court disagreed, explaining that § 2255 is the presumptive means for
collaterally challenging a federal conviction or sentence unless § 2255 proves “inadequate
or ineffective;” and that § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely by
AEDPA’s restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255 motions. Rather, to proceed
under § 2241 the petitioner must show that he had “no earlier opportunity to challenge his
conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law may negate.” In re
2
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997). The District Court further explained that
no intervening law has decriminalized the actions on which Adams’ conviction was based
and that the case on which he relies, Booker, does not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review. Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005). Finding no other
basis for exercising jurisdiction under § 2241, the District Court dismissed Adams’
petition. This appeal followed.1
We agree with the reasoning of the District Court. Adams attempts to fit his claim
into the Dorsainvil exception by arguing that in light of Booker he is actually innocent of
his enhanced sentence. However, even if retroactivity were not a problem, such a claim
does not fit the Dorsainvil exception because it “does not demonstrate that [the petitioner]
was convicted of a nonexistent offense and has no effect on whether the facts of his case
would support his conviction for the substantive offense.” Padilla v. United States, 416
F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005).
In short, the appeal does not present a substantial issue. Accordingly, we will
summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s
judgment de novo. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002).
3