Ramos v. Holt

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-4-2005
Ramos v. Holt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4193
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Ramos v. Holt" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 256.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/256
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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BPS-25
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-4193
STEVEN RAMOS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN RONALD HOLT,
FCI SCHUYLKILL
___________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-00739)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
___________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action
Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 20, 2005
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed November 4, 2005 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM
Steven Ramos appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Ramos’ appeal presents no substantial
question, we will grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance.
In January 1993, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York sentenced Ramos to 480 months in prison for committing several offenses in the
course of participating in a heroin distribution ring. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed. United States v. Melendez, 60 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995).
In August 2001, the sentencing court denied Ramos’ motion to vacate his sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rosario v. United States, 2001 WL 1006641 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30,
2001). The Second Circuit denied Ramos’ request for permission to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. Ramos v. United States, No. 05-0659 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2005).
In April 2005, Ramos filed the current habeas corpus petition under § 2241 in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, the judicial district in which he is currently incarcerated.
Ramos attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The District Court concluded that Ramos could not
proceed under § 2241, and dismissed his habeas petition without prejudice to seek
authorization from the Second Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Ramos appeals.
Section 2255 provides the presumptive means by which a federal prisoner can
challenge his conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343
(1974). A federal prisoner may proceed under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by
2
§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See § 2255; In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997). “A § 2255 motion is inadequate or
ineffective only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or
procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and
adjudication of his claims.” Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir. 2002). Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective because the petitioner is unable
to meet certain procedural requirements, such as the one-year period of limitation or the
requirements for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. at 539.
Specifically, we considered in Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir.
2002), whether § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective for a federal prisoner to challenge his
sentence under Apprendi. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21. We explained that
Dorsainvil was the “rare situation” in which an intervening change in law made the crime
for which Dorsainvil had been convicted “non-criminal.” Id. at 120. Because Apprendi
dealt with sentencing and did not render a conspiracy to import heroin “not criminal,” we
held that § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise an Apprendi argument. Id. at
120-21. Similarly, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise a claim under Booker
or Blakely, each of which is an extension of Apprendi.
In short, upon consideration of Ramos’ petition and “Brief and Memorandum of
Law,” we conclude that his appeal presents us with no substantial question. See Third
Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for
3
summary affirmance and will affirm the District Court’s order.
4