Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-28-2006
USA v. Trader
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4723
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Trader" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1524.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1524
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.
APS-124 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4723
________________
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. Crim. No. 81-cr-00337-1)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 9, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed February 28, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In 1982 Ossie Trader was convicted of bank robbery and related offenses for
which he was sentenced by the District Court to twenty-five years in prison. This Court
affirmed and his subsequent motions for reconsideration of his sentence were denied.
(Trader later committed another bank robbery while on parole, resulting in further
convictions, sentences, and proceedings in the District Court and in this Court.)
In 2000 Trader filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the 1982
conviction. The District Court found that Trader’s motion was time-barred and,
alternatively, that Trader’s claims were meritless. This Court denied Trader’s request for
a certificate of appealability, agreeing with the District Court on both grounds. See
United States v. Trader, C.A. No. 02-2744 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2002).
In January 2005 Trader filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The District Court denied the motion,
explaining that the sentence was not illegal. Trader subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the court also denied. This Court summarily affirmed the denial
of both motions. See United States v. Trader, C.A. No. 05-1267 (3d Cir. Sep. 16, 2005)
In October 2005 Trader filed another Rule 35(a) motion raising the same
arguments. The District Court again denied the motion, and this appeal follows.
I
The version of Rule 35 effective when Trader was sentenced provides that “[t]he
court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in
an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.” Fed. R.
2
Crim. P. 35(a) (West 1976). Under the Rule, a sentence is “illegal” if “[t]he punishment
meted out was ... in excess of that prescribed by the relevant statute, multiple terms were
... imposed for the same offense, [or] ... the terms of the sentence itself [were] legally or
constitutionally invalid in any other respect.” Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430
(1962).
Trader’s arguments here are no more persuasive than they were in their first
incarnation. As thoroughly explained in the District Court’s two January 2005 Orders,
Trader’s sentence – twenty-five years for armed robbery (Count III of the four charged
against him) – was not illegal. See United States v. Trader, No. 81-cr-00337-1 (E.D. Pa.
Jan. 13, 2005); United States v. Trader, No. 81-cr-00337-1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2005).
Trader’s rationale for re-filing, that the District Court “never applied the facts or the law
to petitioner’s claims,” is meritless. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court. To the extent that Trader’s filings include motions to assign the case to a
different district court judge and to expedite the appeal, the motions are denied.