Michael Spataro v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 684 F. App'x 117

Spataro was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(5)), assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(3)), and using/carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §924(c)).
Second Circuit affirmed Spataro’s conviction and the district court resentenced him to a total of 288 months’ imprisonment on remand.
Spataro’s initial 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was denied on the merits in 2013.
After Rosemond v. United States (2014), Spataro filed a pro se §2241 petition claiming actual innocence of the §924(c) aiding-and-abetting theory because Rosemond requires advance knowledge that a confederate would use/carry a gun; he also argued Pinkerton liability conflicted with Rosemond.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing §2255 is the proper remedy and that Spataro had prior opportunities to raise his claims; the district court dismissed the §2241 petition.
The Third Circuit summarily affirmed, holding §2255 is not rendered inadequate where petitioner cannot show actual innocence under the Dorsainvil line, and that Rosemond and Pinkerton are distinct theories so no intervening change made prior challenges unavailable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2241 jurisdiction is available because §2255 is inadequate to test the legality of detention based on Rosemond (actual-innocence safety valve)	Spataro: Rosemond retroactively renders his §924(c) aiding-and-abetting theory non-criminal because he lacked advance knowledge of the gun, so §2255 is inadequate and §2241 relief is proper	Govt: §2255 is the presumptive remedy; Spataro had prior opportunities to raise related claims; Rosemond did not render his conduct non-criminal because record shows advance knowledge	Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. §2255 is not inadequate here because Spataro cannot plausibly show actual innocence given the record (planned execution, witness testimony, phone records)
Whether Pinkerton liability incompatibility with Rosemond creates a Dorsainvil safety-valve claim allowing §2241 relief	Spataro: Pinkerton vicarious-liability instruction at trial conflicts with Rosemond’s advance-knowledge rule, rendering his conviction invalid	Govt: Pinkerton and Rosemond are separate theories; any such claim was or could have been raised earlier under §2255	Held: Dismissed. Pinkerton and Rosemond address distinct theories; no intervening change in law to justify §2241 relief under Dorsainvil

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (Supreme Court holding aiding-and-abetting §924(c) requires advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun)
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (establishing vicarious liability for conspirators for acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that are reasonably foreseeable)
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§2255 is the presumptive mechanism to challenge federal convictions; §2241 is exceptional)
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (permitting §2241 relief only where intervening change in law renders conduct non-criminal and petitioner had no prior opportunity to challenge)
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (gatekeeping for successive §2255 motions does not by itself make §2255 inadequate)
United States v. Tyler, 732 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2013) (when an intervening legal change is invoked, the record must support a claim that earlier conduct is non-criminal)
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (no certificate of appealability required to appeal denial of a §2241 petition)