Cobey Webb v. Warden Allenwood FCI
669 F. App'x 614
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Webb pleaded guilty in the Western District of Virginia to Count 1 (drug conspiracy/possession with intent to distribute cocaine base) and Count 6 (using/possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense) pursuant to a written plea agreement; remaining counts were dismissed.
- He was sentenced to an aggregate 20-year prison term and did not appeal the conviction.
- Webb filed a § 2255 motion in 2009; the WDVA dismissed it as untimely and without merit, and the Fourth Circuit denied a COA in 2010.
- In April 2016, while imprisoned in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Webb filed a § 2241 petition claiming the indictment failed to charge an offense: Count 1 allegedly charged a "conspiracy to attempt" and Count 6 used the phrase "during a drug trafficking crime" rather than "during and in relation to."
- The MDPA dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning § 2255 was not an inadequate or ineffective remedy for Webb’s claims.
- The Third Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal, finding Webb’s challenge could have been raised via § 2255 or at trial and did not invoke any intervening change in substantive law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 is available because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective | Webb: § 2255 is inadequate because his indictment failed to charge an offense (textual defects in Counts 1 and 6) | Government/MDPA: § 2255 is the proper, adequate remedy; Webb could have raised these claims earlier | Held: § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective; § 2241 petition dismissed |
| Whether the indictment’s wording renders the convictions invalid | Webb: Count 1 charged a "conspiracy to attempt" (legally defective); Count 6 used wrong statutory phrasing | Government: Wording defects do not involve intervening substantive law and were available to challenge at trial or via § 2255 | Held: Court did not reach merits under § 2241 because procedural bar (§ 2255 adequate) applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.) (per curiam) (standard for § 2241 review and § 2255 inadequacy exception)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (describing rare circumstances when § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2255 inadequate when no prior opportunity to challenge a conviction after intervening change in substantive law)
- United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. en banc) (discussing COA and appellate procedure)