United States v. Ossie Trader , 328 F. App'x 111 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2009 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5-27-2009
    USA v. Ossie Trader
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 09-1372
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Ossie Trader" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1301.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1301
    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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    CLD-180                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-1372
    ___________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    OSSIE R. TRADER, Appellant
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Criminal No. 94-00534-002)
    District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 and for
    Request for a Certificate of Appealability Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
    May 7, 2009
    Before:     Rendell, Hardiman and Cowen, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: May 27, 2009)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant Ossie Trader appeals from an order of the District Court that dismissed
    both his “petition for a writ of error coram nobis” and his “nunc pro tunc” motion for lack
    of jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we will construe Trader’s notice of appeal as
    a request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), and deny that
    request.
    Trader is a federal prisoner serving a 248-month sentence for armed bank robbery
    and related crimes. After more than a dozen collateral attacks on his conviction and
    sentence, most of them by way of unauthorized § 2255 motions, the District Court entered
    an order instructing Trader to “cease filing papers in this case in this Court.” Trader did
    not abide. Among other post-injunction applications, he filed the instant petition for
    coram nobis and a motion for relief nunc pro tunc. The District Court denied both
    applications, concluding that “these pleadings are DENIED because the Court is without
    jurisdiction, as explained in prior Orders.” This timely appeal followed.
    A § 2255 motion is the presumptive means by which a federal prisoner can
    challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence, unless such a motion would be
    “inadequate or ineffective.” Okereke v. United States, 
    307 F.3d 117
    , 120 (3d Cir. 2002).
    Lack of success in a previous § 2255 motion, however, does not automatically render §
    2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    ,
    539 (3d Cir. 2002). Furthermore, pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
    Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), district courts lack jurisdiction over second or
    successive § 2255 motions without proper authorization from a panel of the court of
    appeals. See Robinson v. Johnson, 
    313 F.3d 128
    , 139-40 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C.
    § 2255(h).
    2
    Trader’s two applications at issue are undoubtedly attacks on the validity of his
    conviction and sentence, and there is no apparent reason why a § 2255 motion would be
    “inadequate or ineffective” in advancing his claims. Therefore, because Trader has failed
    to comply with AEDPA’s stringent gatekeeping requirements for filing a second or
    successive § 2255 motion, we will construe Trader’s notice of appeal as a request for a
    certificate of appealability, and deny that request. See Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Trader’s motion for bail pending appeal is denied as
    moot.
    3