Olee Robinson v. Warden Schuylkill FCI, 687 F. App'x 125

Pro se petitioner Olee Wonzo Robinson, a federal inmate serving life, challenged his 1993 CCE conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848 via a § 2241 habeas petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (filed Jan 2016).
Robinson relies on Richardson v. United States, arguing the superseding indictment failed to allege three or more distinct predicate drug violations required for a CCE, so he is actually innocent of CCE.
Robinson previously sought permission to file a successive § 2255 motion in the Sixth Circuit (denied 2002) and filed a § 2241 in the District of South Carolina in 2010 (dismissed; Fourth Circuit affirmed).
The District Court dismissed the 2016 § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding § 2255 was an adequate remedy and the § 2255 savings clause did not apply; denial of reconsideration was affirmed on appeal.
The Court examined whether the indictment and overt acts charged could satisfy Richardson under Third Circuit precedent (United States v. Bansal) and whether Richardson produces actual-innocence grounds to invoke the § 2255 savings clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2255 is inadequate/ineffective so petitioner may proceed under § 2241	Robinson: § 2255 is inadequate because Richardson-created error makes him actually innocent and successive § 2255 relief unavailable	Govt/District Ct: § 2255 is not inadequate; petitioner had access to § 2255 procedures and gatekeeping denial does not make the remedy ineffective	Held: § 2255 is not inadequate; § 2241 savings clause does not open for Robinson
Whether Richardson entitles Robinson to actual-innocence relief (so § 2241 may be used)	Robinson: Richardson requires jury unanimity on three predicate acts; indictment did not charge three such violations so conviction is invalid	Govt/District Ct: Richardson clarified jury instruction/indictment requirements but did not render charged conduct non-criminal; indictment/overt acts here could supply three predicates per Bansal	Held: Richardson does not establish actual innocence here; petitioner failed to show his conduct would not support CCE under governing law
Whether the court abused discretion in denying reconsideration and refusing appointment of counsel/abeyance	Robinson: procedural relief and counsel needed; appeal should not be summarily affirmed	Court: no abuse; appeal lacks substantial question or arguable merit	Held: No abuse; motions for abeyance and counsel denied

Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (jury unanimity requirement for CCE predicate acts)
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2255 savings clause narrow actual-innocence gateway)
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is presumptive remedy; savings clause rarely applies)
United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011) (post-Richardson: indictment must include facts of at least three felonies, but CCE count need not identify which three)
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (review standards for § 2255 vs § 2241 and access to relief)
Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (savings clause provides narrow safety valve for actual innocence without bypassing § 2255 gatekeeping)
Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (Richardson claim not itself actual innocence sufficient to invoke savings clause)
Kramer v. Olson, 347 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 2003) (Richardson does not open § 2241 portal)
Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2003) (Richardson clarified jury instruction but did not invalidate CCE offenses)
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (Richardson does not negate underlying facts supporting conviction)