David Scates v. Warden Loretto FCI
693 F. App'x 126
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Scates was convicted in the E.D. Va. of being a felon in possession of a firearm and in 1999 was sentenced as an ACCA career offender based on three Virginia burglary convictions, receiving 293 months.
- Scates’s direct appeal and an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion failed; he later filed a § 2241 petition in the W.D. Pa. claiming his Virginia burglary convictions no longer qualified as ACCA predicates.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because Scates did not show § 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective remedy; the District Court adopted that recommendation.
- Scates relied principally on the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Simmons (applying Carachuri‑Rosendo) to argue a 1984 Virginia burglary could not qualify as a violent felony because the actual available sentence did not exceed one year.
- The court found Scates did not show he could not have been sentenced to more than one year under the Virginia statute and therefore, even if § 2241 were available, Simmons did not entitle him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of § 2241 (savings clause) to challenge ACCA designation | Scates: § 2255 is inadequate/ineffective so he may proceed under § 2241 | Gov: § 2255 is adequate; § 2241 is not available because Scates previously litigated his claims | Court: § 2241 unavailable; Scates did not show § 2255 was inadequate, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether 1984 VA burglary qualified as an ACCA violent felony under Simmons | Scates: Simmons means his 1984 conviction could not yield >1 year, so it is not a predicate | Gov: Virginia statute allowed imprisonment exceeding one year, so conviction could qualify as a predicate | Court: On the merits, Scates failed to show his prior conviction could not receive a sentence >1 year; Simmons does not help him |
| Retroactivity / prior opportunity to litigate Simmons-type claim | Scates: Intervening change in law (Simmons) justifies § 2241 relief | Gov: Scates had prior opportunities and § 2255 is proper vehicle; safety-valve narrow | Court: The Dorsainvil/Okereke safety valve is narrow and inapplicable here |
| Taylor categorical‑approach claim raised via § 2241 | Scates: Taylor-based categorical challenge to ACCA predicate | Gov: Taylor claim could have been raised on direct appeal or via § 2255; not a savings-clause basis | Court: Taylor claim cannot be pursued in § 2241 because it could have been raised earlier; § 2255 is the proper remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (defendant’s actual possible sentence, not hypothetical enhancements, determines whether prior conviction is a felony for federal sentence‑enhancement purposes)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (narrow safety‑valve permitting § 2241 when § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is the presumptive remedy; § 2241 relief under savings clause is rare)
- Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (limits consideration of hypothetical or enhanced sentencing exposure in determining immigration consequences; applied by Simmons)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for determining whether prior convictions qualify as predicate offenses)