Barkley Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 84
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Gardner was convicted in 1996 of multiple federal crimes (racketeering, drug conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder, murder in aid of racketeering, carjacking resulting in death, and § 924(c) firearms offenses) and sentenced to concurrent life terms on most counts.
- His direct appeal and a § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim were previously denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2014 Gardner filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania arguing his sentences are unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States and related Supreme Court decisions (Burrage, Rosemond).
- The Magistrate and District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding § 2255 is the presumptive remedy and not inadequate or ineffective to raise Alleyne claims (relying on Okereke and Dorsainvil).
- Gardner appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Alleyne-based sentencing challenges must be raised under § 2255, not § 2241.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal prisoner may use § 2241 to raise an Alleyne sentencing claim | Gardner: Alleyne invalidates mandatory-minimum findings not made by a jury, so § 2241 is proper because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective | Government/District Ct: § 2255 is the presumptive, adequate remedy; § 2241 savings clause applies only in narrow Dorsainvil-type cases | Court: § 2241 jurisdiction lacking; Alleyne claims must be raised under § 2255 (Okereke logic applies) |
| Whether Apprendi/Alleyne sentencing errors convert convictions into noncriminal conduct making § 2255 inadequate | Gardner: Intervening Supreme Court decisions change criminality/sentencing such that § 2255’s gatekeeping is inadequate | Government: Alleyne, like Apprendi, is procedural (sentencing rule) and does not render conduct noncriminal; § 2255 remains adequate | Court: Alleyne is an extension of Apprendi; does not make prior conduct noncriminal; § 2255 is adequate |
| Whether the court must reach Gardner’s Rosemond aiding-and-abetting claim | Gardner: Rosemond may affect aiding-and-abetting convictions | Government: Even if Rosemond applied, concurrent life sentences on Counts 1–3 make relief immaterial | Court: Under the concurrent-sentence doctrine, Rosemond need not be addressed because Counts 1–3 (Alleyne claim) control the sentence |
| Whether special assessments defeat the concurrent-sentence doctrine here | Gardner: Special assessment ($350) means sentences are not truly concurrent | Government: Special assessments are collateral and not cognizable in habeas custody challenges | Court: Ross forecloses Gardner’s argument; special assessments do not convert collateral effects into custody-changing relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is adequate to raise Apprendi sentencing claims; § 2241 not available for such claims)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements for jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (narrow savings-clause exception allowing § 2241 when § 2255 is genuinely inadequate, e.g., intervening substantive change rendering conduct noncriminal)
- United States v. Ross, 801 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2015) (special assessments are collateral consequences not reviewable in habeas custody challenges)