Roderick Black v. Warden Fairton FCI
693 F. App'x 122
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Roderick Black led a drug ring in Ahoskie, NC (Nov 1991–Jan 1994) and was convicted by a jury of multiple drug and firearm offenses; sentenced to consecutive life and 60 months; direct appeal affirmed.
- Black filed multiple collateral challenges (§ 2255, § 2241, § 3582) over years; most were denied as untimely or otherwise unsuccessful.
- In 2016 Black filed a § 2241 petition claiming “actual innocence” of his sentence under Burrage v. United States (2014), arguing his sentence was improperly enhanced by a district-judge drug-quantity finding rather than a jury finding.
- The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective to raise Black’s Burrage/Apprendi-based claim; denial of reconsideration followed.
- Black appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo the legal conclusions and affirmed summarily, holding this was not a rare case allowing § 2241 relief and noting Burrage did not decriminalize his conduct and that Apprendi-based claims belong in § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Black may use § 2241 to raise a Burrage/Apprendi-based challenge to his sentence | Black: § 2241 available because Burrage renders his sentence invalid (actual innocence of enhanced sentence) | Government: § 2255 is the proper remedy; § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective here | Held: § 2241 not available; § 2255 is the proper vehicle and is not inadequate or ineffective |
| Whether Burrage decriminalized Black’s conduct such that new substantive law excuse applies | Black: Burrage undermines the enhancement that produced his mandatory life sentence | Government: Burrage addressed jury finding requirement for certain enhancements, not decriminalization of conduct | Held: Burrage did not decriminalize conduct; it applied Apprendi/Alleyne principles to sentencing enhancements |
| Whether an Apprendi-based claim can make § 2255 inadequate/ineffective | Black: earlier § 2255 remedies were ineffective to obtain relief on this theory | Government: Apprendi-based claims do not render § 2255 inadequate; courts have rejected that exception | Held: Apprendi-based claims do not create the rare circumstances to allow § 2241 in place of § 2255 |
| If jurisdiction existed, whether Burrage would entitle Black to relief on his specific sentencing facts | Black: challenges a district-judge drug-quantity finding tied to life mandatory sentence | Government: Black disputes quantity, not a death/serious-injury finding that Burrage addressed | Held: Even if § 2241 jurisdiction existed, Burrage would not grant relief because Black contests quantity, not a death/serious-bodily-injury finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (holding the “death results” sentencing enhancement is an element that must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (holding any fact increasing the penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extending Apprendi to facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding § 2255 must be used to challenge a federal sentence unless § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
- Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (discussing standards for § 2241 petitions that seek to evade § 2255 limitations)