Christopher Rad v. Warden Pike County Correct, 21-1426

Christopher Rad was convicted in 2012 of participating in a spam-email "pump-and-dump" stock manipulation scheme and sentenced to 71 months; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Rad filed a § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence; the sentencing court denied it and the denial was appealed.
While that appeal was pending, this Court decided Rad v. Att’y Gen. (Rad II) addressing immigration consequences of Rad’s convictions.
Rad attempted to rely on Rad II to claim that one count of conviction was no longer criminal; this Court observed that Rad’s claim lacked merit and could not serve as authorization for a successive § 2255 petition (Rad III).
In January 2021 Rad filed a § 2241 habeas petition asserting the same Rad II–based innocence claim; the District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Third Circuit summarily affirmed, holding § 2255 is the presumptive remedy, the § 2255 savings clause requires an intervening Supreme Court decriminalization, and Rad’s claim did not meet that standard or show actual innocence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rad may use § 2241 under the § 2255 savings clause to challenge his conviction based on Rad II	Rad contends Rad II rendered one count non-criminal, so § 2255 is inadequate and § 2241 is available	Government contends § 2255 is the proper remedy and Rad II is not an intervening Supreme Court decision decriminalizing the conduct	Denied — § 2255 is the presumptive remedy; savings clause not met because no intervening Supreme Court decision decriminalized the conduct
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain Rad’s § 2241 petition	Rad argues jurisdiction exists because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective for his claim	Government argues District Court lacked jurisdiction because Rad’s claim fails the Cordaro/Bruce test for savings-clause § 2241 relief	Affirmed — District Court lacked jurisdiction; Rad’s claim is meritless and does not satisfy the actual-innocence/intervening-decision requirement

Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is the presumptive means to challenge federal convictions or sentences)
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (savings clause applies only when § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective; focus is on inefficacy of the remedy)
Cordaro v. United States, 933 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2019) (§ 2241 savings-clause relief requires colorable actual-innocence claim from intervening Supreme Court decision and § 2255-bar)
Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2017) (same standard for § 2241 via savings clause)
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (certificate of appealability not required to appeal denial of § 2241)
Rad v. Att’y Gen., 983 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2020) (Rad II) (addressing immigration consequences of Rad’s convictions)
United States v. Rad, [citation="559 F. App'x 148"] (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming Rad’s conviction on direct appeal)
Rad v. United States, [citation="844 F. App'x 593"] (3d Cir. 2021) (Rad III) (denying Rad’s attempt to recharacterize a motion as authorization for a successive § 2255; noting the underlying claim lacked merit)