United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
(Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by
petitioner Arthur Carter ("Carter"), a federal
inmate incarcerated at the Allenwood Federal Correctional
Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania. Carter challenges a
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois for the crime of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack) in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(A).
(Id.) Carter claims that his federal sentence was
based on an incorrect criminal history score, and he should
be resentenced with a criminal history score of one point,
with a two point reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act.
(Id.) Carter claims that his sentence
"risks" a violation of the ex post facto clause of
the United States Constitution. (Id. at 8).
review of the petition has been undertaken, see R.
GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.4,  and, for the reasons set
forth below, the petition will be dismissed for lack of
background of this matter has been summarized by the United
States District Court for the Central District of Illinois as
On July 2, 2002, Defendant was found guilty by a Jury in this
Court of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base
(crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A). (Minutes dated 7/2/2002). On November 1, 200[
]2, Defendant was sentenced to the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons for a term of life. (ECF No. 102). Defendant did not
timely appeal his conviction. (ECF No. 152). Defendant sought
post-conviction relief by filing a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Arthur Carter v. United States, ILCD Case No.
04-1131. That Motion was denied. Subsequently, under
retroactive Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, the Defendant's sentence was reduced by this
Court to a sentence of 360 months (lowest end of the
sentencing range of 360 months to life). (ECF No. 184).
Subsequently, Defendant filed pleadings arguing that
Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines and the Supreme
Court case of Allevne v. United States, 133 S.Ct.
2151 (2013) provided a basis for further sentencing
reduction. (See ECF Nos. 228 and 255). Those Motions were
denied. (ECF No. 259).
On July 23, 2014, Carter filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence
"due to the recent amendment to U.S.S.G. for all drugs
minus two [ ]." (ECF No. 267). Pursuant to
Administrative Order (ILCD Case No. 14-1051), the Court
entered TEXT ORDER appointing the Federal Public Defender as
attorney of record for Carter to represent him on his Motion.
On March 16, 2015, pursuant to an agreed motion between the
Federal Public Defender and United States Attorney's
Office, this Court entered an order reducing Carter's
custody sentence to 292 months pursuant to Amendment 782.
(ECF No. 271).
In his newest Motion, Carter appears to be under the mistaken
belief that no action has been taken regarding his sentence
as a result of implementation of Amendment 782 to the United
States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines Manual. (ECF
No. 280 at 4, indicating that he is still serving a sentence
of 360 months). That, of course, is not the case. (See ECF
No. 272, Amended Judgment reducing sentence to 292 months).
Since Carter has already received relief under Amendment 782,
no further reduction is warranted under the change to the
sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, the Motion to Reduce
Sentence -U.S.S.C. Amendment (ECF No. 280) is DENIED.
United States v. Carter, electronic docket, No.
1:01-cr-10041-MMM-JEH, Doc. 282 (CD. 111. September 1, 2015).
filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
on April 14, 2017 on the ground that the probation officer
"incorrectly applied criminal history points that
overrepresents [sic] the Petitioner's criminal history
when she prepared the Petitioner's pre-sentence report.
Due to the incorrect application of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, [the probation officer] violated the
Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process."
(Doc. 1, at 1). For relief, Carter seeks the appointment of
counsel "to assist him in being resentenced."
(Id. at 8).
to the legality of federal convictions or sentences that are
allegedly in violation of the Constitution may generally be
brought only in the district of sentencing pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Okereke v. United States, 307
F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Davis v. United
States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974)); see In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997). Once relief is
sought via section 2255, an individual is prohibited from
filing a second or subsequent 2255 petition unless the
request for relief is based on "newly discovered
evidence" or a "new rule of constitutional
law." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. §
of a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
limited to circumstances where the remedy available under
section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e);
OKereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (explaining that this
exception is extremely narrow). Section 2255 may be
inadequate or ineffective when a federal prisoner is in an
unusual position of having no earlier opportunity to
challenge his conviction or where he "is being detained
for conduct that has subsequently been rendered noncriminal
by an intervening Supreme Court decision."
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52. Conversely,
"[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely
because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the
one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the
petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping
requirements of the amended § 2255." Cradle v.
United States, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002)
(citations omitted); see also United States v.
Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 2000);
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. "If a prisoner
attempts to challenge his conviction or sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, the habeas petition must be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction." Id., citing
Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir.
1971) ("Section 2255 has made the sentencing court the
exclusive forum for challenge to the validity of a conviction