Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-18-2007
Woodfolk v. Dodrill
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4803
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Woodfolk v. Dodrill" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 923.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/923
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CLD-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4803
________________
COREY LORENZO WOODFOLK,
Appellant,
v.
DODRILL, Warden, USP Lewisburg; MARTIN CARLSON
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-00093)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
__________________________
Submitted On A Motion For Summary Affirmance Pursuant
to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 and/or For Possible
Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 10, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 18, 2007)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Corey Lorenzo Woodfolk, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, entered a plea of guilty in 1994 in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute heroin. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
50 years. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United
States v. Williams, No. 94-5508, 87 F.3d 1310 (4 th Cir. June 17, 1996) (Table).
Woodfolk filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 at D.C. Civ.
No. 97-cv-03737, which the sentencing court denied. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the
appeal but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. United States v.
Woodfolk, No. 99-6183, 191 F.3d 449 (4 th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999) (Table). Following that,
Woodfolk tried numerous times to attack his conviction and sentence in the federal
district court in Maryland. He also sought, unsuccessfully, authorization from the Fourth
Circuit to file a second or successive section 2255 motion.
On May 17, 2001, Woodfolk filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, claiming that he lacked an adequate and effective remedy under section
2255 to raise the following claims: a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in light
of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), where the government failed to include
the penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or the elements that constitute the
conspiracy in the indictment; and a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments where
the government failed to promulgate implementing regulations for 21 U.S.C. § 846
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.
2
The District Court dismissed Woodfolk’s habeas petition, concluding that section
2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention, and thus he
cannot pursue his claims outside the context of a section 2255 motion filed in the
sentencing court. We affirmed on November 13, 2003 in Woodfolk v. Romine, C.A. No.
01-2568, holding that section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise an Apprendi
claim merely because the prisoner failed to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements
for filing a second or successive section 2255 motion. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002).
Meanwhile, on January 22, 2002, Woodfolk filed the instant petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, also in United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that his sentence was increased beyond the
statutory maximum in the absence of jury findings to support the enhancement, Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, and that counsel was ineffective in this regard. The District
Court dismissed the petition in an order entered on May 31, 2002. Woodfolk appeals.
The government has moved for summary affirmance.
We will grant the motion for summary affirmance and summarily affirm the order
of the District Court dismissing the habeas corpus petition, because it clearly appears that
no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6. As we previously explained, a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of his
3
conviction or sentence, unless such a motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of the detention. Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120. Section 2255 is not inadequate or
ineffective merely because a prior motion has been unsuccessful or a petitioner is unable
to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements for filing a second or successive section
2255 motion. Id. at 120-21; Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538-39 (3d Cir.
2002). There is a safety valve provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but it is narrow, In re:
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997), and it does not extend to Apprendi claims.
Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21. As such, the District Court was without jurisdiction to
entertain this federal habeas petition.
We will grant the motion for summary affirmance and summarily affirm the order
of the District Court dismissing the federal habeas petition.