Woodfolk v. Dodrill ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-18-2007
    Woodfolk v. Dodrill
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-4803
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Woodfolk v. Dodrill" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 923.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/923
    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.
    CLD-225                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 06-4803
    ________________
    COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK,
    Appellant,
    v.
    DODRILL, Warden, USP Lewisburg; MARTIN CARLSON
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-00093)
    District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
    __________________________
    Submitted On A Motion For Summary Affirmance Pursuant
    to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 and/or For Possible
    Dismissal Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)
    May 10, 2007
    Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: June 18, 2007)
    _________________
    OPINION
    _________________
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United
    States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, entered a plea of guilty in 1994 in the
    United States District Court for the District of Maryland to conspiracy to distribute and
    possess with intent to distribute heroin. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
    50 years. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United
    States v. Williams, No. 94-5508, 
    87 F.3d 1310
     (4 th Cir. June 17, 1996) (Table).
    Woodfolk filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     at D.C. Civ.
    No. 97-cv-03737, which the sentencing court denied. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the
    appeal but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. United States v.
    Woodfolk, No. 99-6183, 
    191 F.3d 449
     (4 th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999) (Table). Following that,
    Woodfolk tried numerous times to attack his conviction and sentence in the federal
    district court in Maryland. He also sought, unsuccessfully, authorization from the Fourth
    Circuit to file a second or successive section 2255 motion.
    On May 17, 2001, Woodfolk filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
    Pennsylvania, claiming that he lacked an adequate and effective remedy under section
    2255 to raise the following claims: a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in light
    of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), where the government failed to include
    the penalty provisions of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A) or the elements that constitute the
    conspiracy in the indictment; and a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments where
    the government failed to promulgate implementing regulations for 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.
    2
    The District Court dismissed Woodfolk’s habeas petition, concluding that section
    2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention, and thus he
    cannot pursue his claims outside the context of a section 2255 motion filed in the
    sentencing court. We affirmed on November 13, 2003 in Woodfolk v. Romine, C.A. No.
    01-2568, holding that section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise an Apprendi
    claim merely because the prisoner failed to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements
    for filing a second or successive section 2255 motion. Okereke v. United States, 
    307 F.3d 117
    , 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002).
    Meanwhile, on January 22, 2002, Woodfolk filed the instant petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , also in United States District Court for the
    Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that his sentence was increased beyond the
    statutory maximum in the absence of jury findings to support the enhancement, Apprendi
    v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , and that counsel was ineffective in this regard. The District
    Court dismissed the petition in an order entered on May 31, 2002. Woodfolk appeals.
    The government has moved for summary affirmance.
    We will grant the motion for summary affirmance and summarily affirm the order
    of the District Court dismissing the habeas corpus petition, because it clearly appears that
    no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and
    I.O.P. 10.6. As we previously explained, a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     is the exclusive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of his
    3
    conviction or sentence, unless such a motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test
    the legality of the detention. Okereke, 
    307 F.3d at 120
    . Section 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 section
    2255 motion. 
    Id. at 120-21
    ; Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538-39 (3d Cir.
    2002). There is a safety valve provided under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , but it is narrow, In re:
    Dorsainvil, 
    119 F.3d 245
     (3d Cir. 1997), and it does not extend to Apprendi claims.
    Okereke, 
    307 F.3d at 120-21
    . As such, the District Court was without jurisdiction to
    entertain this federal habeas petition.
    We will grant the motion for summary affirmance and summarily affirm the order
    of the District Court dismissing the federal habeas petition.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4803

Judges: Rendell, Smith, Jordan

Filed Date: 6/18/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024