Winters v. Samuels , 237 F. App'x 719 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-27-2007
    Winters v. Samuels
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-1207
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Winters v. Samuels" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 875.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/875
    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    CLD-252                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1207
    GERALD WINTERS,
    Appelant
    v.
    SAMUELS, JR.
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-05516)
    District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
    Submitted For Possible Summary Action
    Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    May 31, 2007
    Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: June 27, 2007)
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    Gerald Winters appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his petition for a
    writ of habeas corpus under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    . Because Winters’ appeal presents no
    substantial question, we will grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance.
    In 1990, a grand jury returned a nine-count indictment against Winters and several
    associates. It charged Winters and his co-defendants with racketeering and conspiring to
    commit racketeering in violation of RICO, 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1962
    (c) and 1962(d). Winters
    was also charged with three counts of conspiring to violate and one count of violating the
    Hobbs Act, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1951
    , and three counts of violating the Travel Act, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1952
    . After a lengthy trial the jury returned a mixed verdict. Of the eight co-
    defendants charged with RICO conspiracy, only Winters was found guilty. He was also
    found guilty of two of the Hobbs Act and one of the Travel Act charges. He was
    sentenced to an aggregate term of 415 months’ imprisonment.
    In 1992, we affirmed his conviction, but remanded his case for re-sentencing.
    United States v. Winters, 
    958 F.2d 365
     (3d Cir.)(table). After an identical sentence was
    imposed by the District Court, he appealed and we affirmed. United States v. Winters, 
    5 F.3d 1492
     (3d Cir. 1993)(table). In 1997, Winters filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
    correct his sentence under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , raising 15 claims. The motion was denied,
    he appealed, and we remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing. Winters v.
    United States, No. 98-6078 (3d Cir. Sept. 20, 1999). After, the hearing, the District Court
    again denied the motion and we denied Winters’ request for a certificate for appealability.
    United States v. Winters, No. 04-1408 (3d Cir. August 14, 2001).
    2
    In 2001, Winters filed an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion
    based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), which was denied. In re Winters,
    No. 01-2705 (3d Cir. order entered on Sept. 25, 2001). In 2004, Winters filed a petition
    for habeas corpus under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , arguing that, under Scheidler v. National
    Organization of Women, Inc., 
    537 U.S. 393
     (2003), he was “actually innocent” of the
    Hobbs Act charges. The District Court found that Scheidler was inapplicable to his case,
    and dismissed Winters’ petition. Winters v. Derosa, No. 04-cv-0736 (D. N.J. March 21,
    2005). He did not appeal.
    Winters then filed this petition for habeas corpus under § 2241. In the petition he
    argued that, because none of his co-conspirators was convicted, he necessarily was
    innocent of the conspiracy to commit racketeering charge. He also argued that, if the
    conspiracy to commit racketeering involved an unindicted co-conspirator, then the
    conviction was barred by the statute of limitations. The District Court found that, despite
    its caption, his petition was a second or successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it for
    lack of jurisdiction.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Our review of a District
    Court's decision to dismiss a § 2241 petition is plenary. See Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner,
    
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We may affirm the District Court on any ground
    supported by the record. Tourscher v. McCullough, 
    184 F.3d 236
    , 239 (3d Cir. 1999).
    Generally, a challenge to the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be
    brought in a § 2255 motion. See Davis v. United States, 
    417 U.S. 333
    , 343 (1974). The
    3
    “savings clause” of § 2255 provides that a federal prisoner may proceed under § 2241
    only if the remedy provided by § 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). The
    fact that a petitioner has previously been denied relief, cannot meet the requirements for
    filing a second or successive § 2255 motion, or is unable to comply with § 2255's statute
    of limitations, is insufficient to justify proceeding under § 2241. Cradle, 
    290 F.3d at 538
    .
    Winters cannot show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to bring this claim
    and, thus, he cannot proceed via § 2241. Winters merely asserts that he is “actually
    innocent” of the RICO conspiracy charge and that that fact entitles him to proceed under
    § 2241. However, Winters has raised these same claims before and was found by this
    Court to be actually guilty. His claim that he must be innocent of conspiracy to commit
    racketeering because his co-conspirators were acquitted was raised and disposed of on
    direct appeal. In his § 2255 motion, he raised the same statute of limitations argument,
    which was also rejected.
    In short, upon consideration of Winters’ petition and “Motion Opposing Summary
    Action,” 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 will summarily affirm the District
    Court’s order.
    4