Chambers v. Williamson, (3rd Cir. 2007)
Linked as:
Text
ALD-221 N O T PRECEDENTIAL
U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT
N O . 07-1073
G E O R G E CHAMBERS,
Appellant
v. W A R D E N TROY WILLIAMSON
U S P -L ew isbu rg
O n Appeal From the United States District Court
F o r the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D .C . Civ. No. 06-cv-02382)
D is tric t Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
S u b m itte d For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
M a y 10, 2007
B e f o re : SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(F ile d June 6, 2007
OPINION
P E R CURIAM G e o rg e Chambers, a prisoner at U.S.P. Lewisburg, appeals from the District C o u rt's order dismissing the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the ju d g m e n t of the District Court.
In 1994 a jury found Chambers guilty of various crimes related to the distribution o f cocaine base, for which he is serving a life sentence. After Fourth Circuit Court of A p p e a ls affirmed, Chambers filed a motion pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2255, which the D istric t Court dismissed as untimely and meritless. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals d e n ie d Chambers' request for a certificate of appealability.
Chambers next sought relief via 28U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his conviction and s e n te n c e should be vacated pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
The District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to Chambers' seeking a u th o riz a tio n from this Court to file a second § 2255 motion. We affirmed in a nonp rec ed en tial opinion. Chambers v. Romine, 41 Fed. Appx. 525 (3d Cir. 2002). Chambers th e n filed two more § 2255 motions, which were dismissed as unauthorized. After a f f i rm in g each dismissal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Chambers' s u b s e q u e n t applications for authorization to file a second § 2255 motion.
Undeterred, Chambers filed another § 2241 petition, again challenging his c o n v ic tio n and sentence under Apprendi and its progeny. The District Court dismissed th e petition pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2244(a) because Chambers had raised essentially the s a m e issues in his previous § 2241 petition. This appeal followed.
T h e District Court properly dismissed Chambers' petition. Even if Chambers had n o t already raised essentially the same claims in his previous § 2241 petition, he still ca n n o t present them via § 2241. Rather, his claims fall squarely within § 2255. The mere f a ct that he is barred by AEDPA's procedural rules from filing another § 2255 motion d o e s not render § 2255 "inadequate or ineffective," thereby allowing him to proceed u n d e r § 2241. As we have already explained this to Chambers in detail, we will not re p e a t ourselves here. See Chambers, 41 Fed. Appx. 525 at 526-527.
Sponsored links
