Filed: Apr. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ALD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-3928 _ DAVID THAI, Appellant v. WARDEN LEWISBURG USP; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-01333) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley _ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 26, 2015 Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: Apr
Summary: ALD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-3928 _ DAVID THAI, Appellant v. WARDEN LEWISBURG USP; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-01333) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley _ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 26, 2015 Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: Apri..
More
ALD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3928
___________
DAVID THAI,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-01333)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 26, 2015
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 9, 2015)
______________
OPINION*
______________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Appellant David Thai appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Thai was convicted of a series of crimes involving murder, assault, robbery,
extortion, and racketeering as a result of his participation in the activities of a street gang.
On October 23, 1992, Thai was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment,
plus one term of twenty years, two terms of ten years, and one term of three years, all to
be served concurrently with his life terms. Thai’s sentences were followed by various
terms of supervised release, and were accompanied by orders to pay restitution and
special assessments. With the exception of one conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1959,
which was reversed, Thai’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. See
United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 794 (2d Cir. 1994). Pursuant to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals’ ruling, the sentencing court amended Thai’s Judgment and
Commitment Order on February 1, 1995, and reduced his overall special assessment to
account for the dismissed count.
Thai thereafter filed a motion in the District Court for the Eastern District of New
York seeking to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thai asserted, inter alia,
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and government violations under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972), as well
as claims for relief under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), Blakely v.
Washington,
542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
2
The District Court denied his § 2255 motion. See Thai v. United States, No. 99 CV 7415,
2007 WL 13416 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2007). It does not appear that Thai sought a certificate
of appealability from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thai continued his quest for collateral relief by filing an application for
authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals in March 2014, raising claims based on Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
2072 (2013), Alleyne v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and Burrage v. United
States,
134 S. Ct. 881 (2014). The Court of Appeals denied Thai’s application,
concluding that even if the Supreme Court had announced new rules of constitutional law
in these cases, none has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review. See Thai v. United States, No. 14-870 (2d Cir. filed Apr. 22, 2014). A
motion seeking reconsideration of his 1995 resentencing was likewise unsuccessful, with
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissing Thai’s appeal from that
determination as meritless pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See United States v. Thai,
No. 14-4689 (2d Cir. filed Mar. 11, 2015).
In July 2014, Thai – confined in the Middle District of Pennsylvania – filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in that District Court. In
his petition, Thai claimed an entitlement to habeas relief on the bases of Alleyne, Peugh,
and Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2014). More specifically, Thai
claimed that he “was convicted and sentenced to crimes neither charged and/or proven
beyond a reasonable doubt” as a result of the District Court’s use of “premeditation first-
3
degree murder to sentence [him] to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of life
without parole.” See § 2241 Mem. in Supp. at 1, 5. Without consideration of the
aggravated crime of first-degree murder, Thai asserts that he would have faced a statutory
range under the Sentencing Guidelines of “20 years, not mandatory.” Id. at 12. In an
order entered on August 7, 2014, the District Court dismissed Thai’s § 2241 petition for
lack of jurisdiction, concluding that § 2255’s safety valve, see In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d
245 (3d Cir. 1997), did not apply to Thai’s claims. This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of
the District Court’s decision to dismiss Thai’s § 2241 petition is plenary. See Cradle v.
U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). Our Clerk advised Thai that the
appeal was subject to summary action under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He
was invited to submit argument in writing, but has not done so. After carefully
considering the record and for essentially the same reasons set forth by the District Court,
we will summarily affirm the order of dismissal.
A § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a
federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United
States, 417 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1974); Okereke v. United States,
307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d
Cir. 2002). A habeas petitioner may seek relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided
by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention. See
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249-51. A § 2255 motion is not “inadequate or ineffective”
merely because the petitioner cannot meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of §
4
2255, see Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120, or because the sentencing court does not grant relief.
See
Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. Rather, 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
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251).
We agree with the District Court that § 2241 is not the proper means for raising
the claims Thai seeks to advance in the underlying petition. We further agree that Thai
has not demonstrated that a § 2255 motion provides an inadequate or ineffective remedy
in this case. As Thai himself appears to concede, the cases he cites – Alleyne, Peugh, and
Whiteside – do not reflect an intervening change in law which renders the crimes of
which he was convicted non-criminal.
In Alleyne, which set forth a new rule of constitutional law, the Supreme Court
held that a fact that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury
and found beyond a reasonable doubt. 133 S. Ct. at 2155. As the District Court noted,
Alleyne is essentially an extension of Apprendi. See, e.g., United States v. Burnett,
773
F.3d 122, 136 (3d Cir. 2014). In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the
fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the
prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.”
Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. We held in
Okereke, 307 F.3d at 121,
that Ҥ 2255 [i]s not inadequate or ineffective for [a prisoner] to raise his Apprendi
5
argument.” We see no reason to treat claims brought under Alleyne differently.
Additionally, contrary to Thai’s assertion, Alleyne has not been made retroactive to cases
on collateral review. See United States v. Reyes, 755 F.3d 210, 212-13 (3d Cir. 2014).
Thai’s reliance on Peugh fares no better. In Peugh, the Court ruled that the Ex
Post Facto Clause prohibits applying an amended Sentencing Guidelines provision in
effect when the defendant was sentenced, if the amended version of the Guidelines
provides a higher sentencing range than the version in effect when the crime was
committed. Peugh, 133 S. Ct. at 2078. Even accepting, arguendo, Thai’s contention that
Peugh is relevant to the facts of his case, it does not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review, as other courts have held. See, e.g., Herrera-Gomez v. United States,
755 F.3d 142, 146 (2d Cir. 2014).
Thai’s reliance on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Whiteside
requires little discussion. Not only did the court in Whiteside expressly refrain from
deciding whether the savings clause in § 2255(e) might justify relief from the type of
sentencing error at issue in that case, see 748 F.3d at 547 n.4, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals went on to render an en banc rehearing decision affirming the District Court’s
dismissal of the § 2255 motion – which was an initial § 2255 motion – as untimely filed.
See Whiteside v. United States,
775 F.3d 180, 181 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The
Whiteside decision is, thus, of no benefit to Thai.
Thai had a prior opportunity to challenge his sentence under § 2255, and he did so
albeit unsuccessfully. A § 2255 motion is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because
6
a petitioner cannot meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255. Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d at 251. It follows, as the District Court concluded, that § 2241 is not the proper
means of raising the claims Thai seeks to pursue and the District Court lacked jurisdiction
to address them. For the foregoing reasons and because the appeal presents no
substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order of dismissal.
See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
7
