Chester Blum v. Ronnie Holt

DLD-102
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4218
___________
CHESTER L. BLUM,
Appellant
v.
RONNIE HOLT; BOP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00736)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 28, 2011
Before: BARRY, FISHER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : February 7, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Chester L. Blum, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, we will
summarily affirm. See I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In 1994, Blum was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)
and (d), as well as a firearms offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He was
sentenced as a career criminal to 360 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three
years of supervised release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed his judgment of sentence. Blum later filed an unsuccessful motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In April 2010, Blum filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania – the District of his confinement – a petition under § 2241
seeking his immediate release. He argued that the 1994 federal sentencing court
improperly considered his prior 1962 state court murder conviction to determine that he
was a career offender, which resulted in the imposition of a substantially longer sentence.
Blum asserted that he was entitled to have his claim heard under § 2241 because
§ 2255 is inadequate or unavailable. Specifically, he claimed that he is precluded from
filing another § 2255 motion because the one-year statute of limitations has expired, and
also because he did not receive the documents necessary to demonstrate that his 1962
conviction should not have been considered for purposes of his 1994 federal sentence
2
until 2005. A Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal of the § 2241 petition,
concluding that Blum’s recourse is to seek permission from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The District
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, agreeing that
Blum’s claim cannot be raised under § 2241 because he has not shown that the remedy
under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. The District Court denied Blum’s motion for
reconsideration and he timely appealed.
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A § 2255 motion
filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge
the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343
(1974); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). A habeas petitioner may seek
relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective”
to test the legality of his detention. See Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249-51. A § 2255 motion
is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because the petitioner cannot meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d
Cir. 2002), or because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle v. United States
ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Rather, the “safety valve”
provided under § 2255 is extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusual
situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his
3
conviction for a crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in law.
See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251).
We agree with the District Court that Blum has not demonstrated that a § 2255
motion provides inadequate or ineffective means to raise his claim. Id. 1 Thus, to the
extent that Blum wishes to file a second or successive § 2255 motion with the sentencing
court, the District Court appropriately informed him that he must request authorization
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before doing so. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
As Blum’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See
Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
1
We further agree with the District Court’s decision to deny Blum’s motion to
amend his § 2241 petition as it is unclear from that filing what Blum sought to amend.
4