Firkon James v. United States ( 2023 )

CLD-009 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2303
___________
FIRKON JAMES,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 1:18-cv-12913)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R.
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, or for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
October 19, 2023
Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed November 13, 2023)
_________
OPINION*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Firkon James appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his habeas petition for
lack of jurisdiction. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the
District Court’s order. For the reasons that follow, we grant the Government’s motion.
I.
James pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic crack cocaine and was sentenced as a
“career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1 James’s subsequently filed motions to
withdraw his plea, modify his sentence under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, vacate
his sentence under § 2255(a), and (via § 2244) file a new § 2255 motion all failed.
James then filed a pro se habeas petition under § 2241. Repurposing a claim from
his unsuccessful § 2244 motion, James argued that the career offender enhancement—
and, therefore, the Guidelines range applied at sentencing—was erroneous under Mathis
v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), making him ‘innocent’ of his sentence.2
The Government responded with a motion to dismiss, which the District Court
granted. The District Court observed that a § 2255 motion is the presumptive vehicle for
the inmate who seeks to collaterally attack his federal sentence. It observed further that,
while resort to § 2241 is allowed under the § 2255(e) saving clause when a § 2255
1
James’s original sentence of 300 months of incarceration was reduced by 8 months as a
result of a successful motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2
The predicates for James’s career offender enhancement were drug offenses under N.Y.
Penal Law §§ 220.31 and 220.06. For his ‘innocence’ argument, James has relied on
United States v. Townsend, 897 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2018), where the court applied
Mathis and concluded that a conviction under § 220.31 did not qualify as a “controlled
substance” offense under § 4B1.2(b) and the career offender enhancement.
2
motion is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of one’s detention, such a motion
is not “inadequate or ineffective” simply because the inmate cannot satisfy the § 2255(h)
requirements for second or successive § 2255 motions. See DC Op. 10 (citing Cradle v.
United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam)).
The District Court took note of Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170(3d Cir. 2017), where we explained that under In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.
1997), a federal inmate could access § 2241 (via § 2255(e)) if he presented an actual
innocence theory based on “a change in statutory caselaw that applies retroactively in
cases on collateral review,” so long as he “had no earlier opportunity to test the legality
of his detention since the intervening Supreme Court decision issued.” Bruce, 868 F.3d at
179-80. James, though, did not meet those criteria. Finally, the District Court declined to
transfer James’s petition to the Second Circuit, to be treated as a § 2244 motion, because
he “does not appear to be able to meet the requirements of § 2255(h).” DC Op. 10.
James appealed the District Court’s order of dismissal. By order of the Clerk, his
appeal was stayed pending a decision in the matter of Wilson v. Warden Canaan USP,
C.A. No. 18-2154 (3d Cir.), which like James’s appeal appeared to present the question
of whether an inmate may use a § 2241 petition to claim ‘innocence’ of a Guidelines
career-offender enhancement—a question left open in United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d
132, 160-61 (3d Cir. 2015).
Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023),
which abrogated Dorsainvil (and with it Bruce, in relevant part). The parties were then
directed to address the impact of Jones, if any, on this appeal. The Government
3
responded with a motion seeking summary affirmance of the District Court’s order.
James filed a motion for counsel, which we denied, followed by a response to Jones.
After considering the above procedural history and the parties’ responses to Jones,
the Wilson stay is hereby lifted. The merits of James’s appeal may now be decided.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a) and our review is de
novo. See Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538.3 No certificate of appealability is required for James to
proceed with this appeal. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
III.
Only if a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective” may a federal court
entertain a § 2241 habeas petition in this context. See Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538. The
District Court determined that a § 2255 motion was not “inadequate or ineffective” here.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones makes clear that the District Court did not err.
Jones held that AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions
(i.e., § 2255(h)(1)-(2)) bar serial § 2255 motions that are “based solely on a more
favorable interpretation of statutory law adopted after [the inmate’s] conviction became
final and his initial § 2255 motion was resolved.” Jones, 599 U.S. at 469. Section 2255(h)
does not make § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective” under § 2255(e), however, such that the
inmate may attack his convictions or sentence under § 2241. Id. Instead, “the saving
clause preserves recourse to § 2241 in cases where unusual circumstances make it
3
The Government’s argument that, after Jones, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide
James’s appeal and should dismiss it, see Gov’t Resp. 2, is frivolous and rejected as such.
4
impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as for
challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence.” Id. at 478.
The circumstances that might allow James to challenge his sentence with a § 2241
habeas petition are not present in his case. James concedes as much. See Resp. 2 (“With
the Supreme Court[’s] decision in Jones v. Hendrix this avenue has been foreclosed[.]”).
At the same time, James argues that his appeal would certainly have been successful had
it been decided pre-Jones. That is not a valid basis for demonstrating error by the District
Court. And the factual premise is wrong, regardless, as it was an open question in this
Circuit whether an inmate like James could pursue a claim of innocence with respect to
his sentence only, using § 2241 and the now-defunct Dorsainvil/Bruce paradigm.
For those reasons, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018). The order of the District Court will
be affirmed.
5