Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Spencer Bowens v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Spencer Bowens' appeal of the denial of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court summarizes that Bowens was convicted of drug and obstruction charges and sentenced as a career offender based on two prior robbery convictions. While Bowens argued one conviction was improperly considered, the court found that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle to challenge his sentence, as relief under § 2255 was not inadequate, and affirmed the denial of his petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Spencer Bowens v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    56 views5 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Spencer Bowens' appeal of the denial of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court summarizes that Bowens was convicted of drug and obstruction charges and sentenced as a career offender based on two prior robbery convictions. While Bowens argued one conviction was improperly considered, the court found that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle to challenge his sentence, as relief under § 2255 was not inadequate, and affirmed the denial of his petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1175

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Spencer Bowens' appeal of the denial of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court summarizes that Bowens was convicted of drug and obstruction charges and sentenced as a career offender based on two prior robbery convictions. While Bowens argued one conviction was improperly considered, the court found that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle to challenge his sentence, as relief under § 2255 was not inadequate, and affirmed the denial of his petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    56 views5 pages

    Spencer Bowens v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Spencer Bowens' appeal of the denial of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court summarizes that Bowens was convicted of drug and obstruction charges and sentenced as a career offender based on two prior robbery convictions. While Bowens argued one conviction was improperly considered, the court found that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle to challenge his sentence, as relief under § 2255 was not inadequate, and affirmed the denial of his petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    GLD-047

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-1175
    ___________
    SPENCER BOWENS,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-01575)
    District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action
    Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    November 21, 2012
    Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: January 4, 2013)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________

    PER CURIAM
    Spencer Bowens appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the

    District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.


    In September 1998, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia found Bowens guilty of conspiracy to possess and distribute crack
    cocaine, powder cocaine, and heroin; two counts of harboring a fugitive from arrest; and
    obstruction of justice. The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) indicated that Bowens qualified
    as a career offender based on two New York state robbery convictions. Bowens
    challenged that classification at sentencing. The sentencing court rejected Bowens
    argument, noting that the New York convictions were not related for purposes of the
    federal Sentencing Guidelines because the underlying robbery offenses were separated by
    an intervening arrest. Bowens was sentenced to life imprisonment.
    On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated
    Bowens convictions for harboring a fugitive, but otherwise affirmed his convictions and
    sentence. United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000). In 2002, Bowens
    filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, which the District Court denied. The Fourth
    Circuit denied Bowens request for a certificate of appealabilty. Thereafter, Bowens filed
    a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 (Clerical Error), again
    alleging that he was improperly classified as a career offender based on the two New
    York robbery convictions. The District Court denied relief, noting that it had already
    addressed Bowens argument, which, in any event, was not properly brought pursuant to
    Rule 36.
    In July 2010, Bowens filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the Middle
    District of Pennsylvania, seeking to challeng[e] the calculation of his criminal history

    score under the federal Sentencing Guidelines in order to secure a more favorable
    custody classification. The Government filed a response. The District Court dismissed
    the petition, offering several separate justifications for rejecting Bowens claim. First,
    the District Court held that Bowens challenge to his [Bureau of Prisons (BOP)]
    custody classification is not properly pursued in a 2241 petition because it did not
    implicate the fact or duration of his sentence. Second, the District Court reasoned that,
    [r]egardless of how [Bowens] labels his PSR[-]related claim, it clearly questions the
    legality of his federal sentence. Because Bowens failed to demonstrate that a motion
    under 2255 would be an inadequate or ineffective remedy, the District Court held that
    his claim was not cognizable under 2241. Finally, the District Court suggested that the
    Government had properly argued that Bowens pending action is deficient since he is
    attempting to rehash the same argument that he previously unsuccessfully raised before
    the sentencing court. Bowens appealed.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Our review of District Courts
    legal conclusions is plenary and we apply a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of
    fact. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002). We may affirm the
    District Court on any basis supported by the record. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d
    187, 191 (3d Cir. 2011). Although Bowens filed an Application for Issuance of a
    Certificate of Appealability [COA], a COA is not required to appeal the denial of a
    2241 petition. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
    Nevertheless, we have considered the arguments raised in Bowens Application.

    A motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in the sentencing court is the presumptive
    means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See
    Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A petitioner can seek relief
    under 2241 only if the remedy provided by 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test
    the legality of his detention. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997). A
    2255 motion is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the petitioner cannot
    meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of 2255, Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120, or
    because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner,
    290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 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. Okereke, 307
    F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). For example, in Dorsainvil, we
    allowed the petitioner to proceed under 2241 because an intervening change in the law
    decriminalized conduct for which he had been convicted, and he had no earlier
    opportunity to challenge that conviction. Dorsainvil, 119 F. 3d at 251.
    Bowens claims that he was improperly classified as a career offender because he
    did not have the requisite two prior felony convictions. U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Although
    Bowens was arrested and charged with robbery on two separate occasions, he asserts that
    one of those charges was later dismissed and that he was ultimately convicted of only one
    robbery count. This is not the rare situation rendering 2255 inadequate or ineffective.
    Bowens has not been convicted of an offense that was later found to be noncriminal.

    Instead, Bowens raises arguments concerning his career offender status that were raised
    at his sentencing proceeding, and that could have been pursued on direct appeal or in his
    2255 motion. That Bowens has already unsuccessfully pursued a 2255 motion in the
    sentencing court and now faces a statutory bar to filing another one does not show the
    inadequacy of that remedy. See Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir.
    2002).
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is no substantial question
    presented by this appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we
    will summarily affirm the District Courts judgment. 1

    Bowens motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to reopen the appeal are
    granted.

    You might also like