Montes v. Nash , 179 F. App'x 824 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-5-2006
Montes v. Nash
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5534
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Montes v. Nash" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1148.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1148
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-58 (April 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5534
________________
EDUARDO MONTES,
Appellant
vs.
JOHN NASH, Warden, F.C.I.
Fort Dix, New Jersey
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D. N.J. Civ. No. 05-cv-04531)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 21, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 5, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Eduardo Montes appeals pro se from an order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing without prejudice his habeas petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. In 1993, Montes was convicted of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21
1
U.S.C. § 846. The sentencing court enhanced Montes’s base offense level from 34 to 38,
based on its finding that Montes held an organizational role in the conspiracy. Montes
was sentenced to 240 months of incarceration. We affirmed the conviction and sentence
in 1994, and affirmed the District Court’s denial of § 2255 relief in 1998. The District
Court denied Montes’s subsequent § 2241 petition in 1999. Montes did not appeal.
On September 12, 2005, Montes filed this § 2241 petition asserting that his
sentence was wrongfully enhanced in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
Specifically, he contended that under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
jury, not the judge, should have made the findings of fact with respect to the sentence
enhancement. Montes also claimed that the court’s error in finding facts relating to the
sentence enhancement was structural in nature. Finally, Montes claimed that he is
entitled to seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2241 because § 2255 relief is “ineffective
or inadequate.”
The District Court summarily dismissed the § 2241 petition without
prejudice, ruling that § 2255 could not be considered ineffective or inadequate to test the
legality of Montes’s sentence. Concluding that the petition could be considered only as a
second or successive§ 2255 motion to vacate the sentence, the District Court determined
that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was not the sentencing court
and, further, because Montes had not sought leave from this Court to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. Montes timely appealed.
2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. For essentially the same
reasons set forth by the District Court in its Order entered December 13, 2005, we will
summarily affirm.
As the District Court properly concluded, a § 2255 motion is the
presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or
sentence, unless such a motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
his detention.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 ¶ 5. A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only when “some limitation of
scope or procedure” prevents a movant from receiving an adjudication of his claim.
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). “Section 2255 is
not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief,
the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the
stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Id. at 539.
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 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). Such is not the case here. Montes makes no allegation, nor could he, that
he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. The exception identified
in In re Dorsainvil is simply inapplicable, and Montes may not seek relief under § 2241.
3
We agree with the District Court’s determination that even if the petition were re-
characterized as a § 2255 motion, the District Court would lack jurisdiction to consider it.
Because the petition was properly dismissed and no substantial question is
presented by this appeal, the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed. See Third
Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
4