Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-21-2005
Taylor v. Williamsons
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2158
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Taylor v. Williamsons" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 978.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/978
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BPS-254 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2158
______________
CHARLIE P. TAYLOR,
Appellant
v.
TROY WILLIAMSONS
Warden, FCI Allenwood MED.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00298)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 3, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 21, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Charlie Taylor, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Allenwood
Correctional Institution in White Deer, Pennsylvania, appeals the order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for writ
of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In 1999, Taylor pleaded guilty to
possession with intent to distribute a substance containing detectable amounts of cocaine
base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia imposed sixty months
imprisonment for each sentence, consecutively. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, and the United States Supreme
Court denied certiorari review.
In 2002, Taylor filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his
conviction and sentence for both charges. The sentencing court vacated his conviction
and sentence for the firearm offense and ordered a re-sentencing on the drug offense.
Thereafter, the court vacated the drug conviction, as well, and reinstated the original
indictment, except for the firearm charge. The government then filed a superseding
indictment, and Taylor pleaded guilty to a drug offense of possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. In March 2003, the court imposed 100
months imprisonment.
In February 2005, Taylor filed the instant § 2241 petition alleging that his sentence
violates Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000). In addition, Taylor asserted that because Blakely is an intervening
change in law, § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective,” and thus § 2241 is available for
2
relief. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court
found that Taylor’s petition challenging his sentence falls under § 2255, and that § 2255
is not an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of his detention. The court
also noted that Taylor’s Blakely/Apprendi claim lacks merit as he failed to recognize that
his sentence was based upon the superseding indictment filed in January 2003 (not the
original March 1999 indictment), which included a charge that permitted a 100-month
prison sentence under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the
§ 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Taylor timely filed this appeal and a motion for
summary action.
Summary action is warranted when “no substantial question” is presented by the
appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir.
2002). After a careful review of the record, we will summarily affirm.1
We agree with the District Court that Taylor’s claims fall within the purview of
§ 2255. A federal prisoner’s challenge to the legality of his conviction and sentence must
be raised in a § 2255 motion, except where the remedy under § 2255 would be
“inadequate or ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249
(3d Cir. 1997). We have held that § 2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” for prisoners
seeking to raise an Apprendi claim in a § 2241 proceeding. See Okereke v. United States,
1
In reaching this disposition, we have fully considered, but reject, the arguments
presented in Taylor’s “Motion for Summary Action to Vacate, Remand, Set Aside or
Reverse Judgment.”
3
307 F.3d 117, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002). Like Apprendi, Blakely (and moreover, United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)), did not change the substantive law as to the
elements of the offense for which Taylor was convicted. Therefore, the District Court
properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Taylor’s claims. See In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d at 249. Taylor’s available avenue to seek relief is by filing a § 2255 motion in
the sentencing court, and if he has already pursued that vehicle, he can file an application
with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for permission to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. Although Taylor may face substantive and procedural hurdles
in presenting his claim in a § 2255 motion, that alone does not render a § 2255 motion an
“inadequate or ineffective” remedy. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21.
In conclusion, because no substantial question is presented on appeal, the District
Court’s judgment will be affirmed.
4