Carl Van Putten v. Warden Lewisburg USP
684 F. App'x 126
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Carl Van Putten was convicted in the S.D.N.Y. of murder during a major narcotics conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, vacated and remanded for the district court to consider Guidelines departure issues, and after resentencing affirmed again.
- Van Putten filed a § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim in S.D.N.Y., which was denied; the Second Circuit later denied permission to file a successive § 2255 motion.
- While incarcerated in the M.D. Pa., Van Putten filed a § 2241 habeas petition asserting Alleyne error — that his mandatory life sentence was unlawful because the jury did not find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The M.D. Pa. dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Van Putten could not use the § 2255 safety valve under Dorsainvil; Van Putten appealed.
- The Third Circuit summarily affirmed, holding Alleyne-based sentencing challenges do not render § 2255 inadequate and Alleyne claims cannot be raised via § 2241.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Van Putten may attack his sentence via § 2241 because § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective" | Alleyne renders his mandatory life sentence unlawful and § 2255 is inadequate to obtain relief | § 2255 is the proper remedy; inability to meet § 2255 gatekeeping does not make it inadequate | Denied — § 2255 is not inadequate; § 2241 relief unavailable |
| Whether Alleyne claim can be raised in a § 2241 petition | Alleyne error (jury must find facts increasing mandatory penalty) applies to his sentence and justifies § 2241 relief | Alleyne claims are not cognizable in § 2241 and do not fall within the Dorsainvil safety valve | Denied — Alleyne claims cannot be raised in § 2241 |
| Whether Alleyne should be applied retroactively on collateral review | Alleyne (arguably) makes his sentence illegal and should apply retroactively | Alleyne has not been held retroactive by controlling precedent; recent decisions do not change availability here | Denied — Alleyne is not a retroactively applicable change to allow § 2241 relief |
| Whether Van Putten had no prior opportunity to raise his claim | He did not raise Alleyne on direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion and thus needs an alternate forum | Prior opportunities existed (direct appeal, § 2255) and inability to satisfy § 2255(h) gatekeeping is not § 2255 inadequacy | Denied — petitioner had prior opportunities; safety-valve inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt)
- Dorsainvil v. United States, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (narrow "safety valve" allowing § 2241 where § 2255 is inadequate because of intervening change making conduct non-criminal)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is presumptive remedy; safety-valve applies only in rare circumstances)
- Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of review and § 2255 adequacy principles)
- Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (Alleyne claims cannot be raised in § 2241)
- United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2014) (Alleyne is not retroactively applicable on collateral review)