Kenneth Reid v. Garza

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 7, 2024
• Docket: 24-1181
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

Nos. 24-1181 & 24-1182 ___________

KENNETH R. REID, Appellant

v.

WARDEN GARZA, USP-Canaan ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 1-23-cv-01559 & 1-23-cv-02134) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 9, 2024 Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 7, 2024) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se Appellant Kenneth R. Reid, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the

District Court’s judgments dismissing his two 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions for lack of

jurisdiction. Since Reid’s appeals do not present a substantial question, we will

summarily affirm.

Reid was convicted and sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of

South Carolina for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, murder through the use of a

firearm in the course of a drug trafficking crime, and two counts of unlawful possession

of a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge, 240 months

in prison for the drug conspiracy charge, and 120 months in prison each for the two

firearm charges, all to be served concurrently. In 2010, Reid filed a motion with the

sentencing court seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, and it was denied on the merits. See United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-353,

2010 WL 3724663 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2010) (containing opinion and order dismissing with

prejudice Reid’s § 2255 motion), reconsideration denied, 2011 WL 285867 (Jan. 27,

2011), appeal dismissed, 419 F. App’x 310 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also United

States v. Reid, 678 F. App’x 148 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for lack

of jurisdiction and as untimely filed).

As the District Court noted, Reid filed several other motions that were all

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as unauthorized successive § 2255 motions. He also

filed a number of § 2241 petitions seeking habeas relief under § 2255(e) that were also

denied.

2 Turning to the instant proceedings, in Case No. 1-23-cv-01559, Reid presented an

actual innocence claim in his § 2241 petition (“the 01559 petition”) premised on

retroactivity and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. He alleged that he was innocent of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of crack

cocaine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 841(b)(1)(B).

He alleged that under new modifications to these laws, the threshold for guilt relates to

280 grams, rather than 50 grams. In the 01559 petition, Reid also briefly presented an

actual innocence argument with respect to his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

for unlawful possession of a firearm.

In his second petition, which opened Case No. 1-23-cv-02134 (“the 02134

petition”), Reid expanded on his argument related to the firearm convictions. He argued

that the Supreme Court’s holding in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597

U.S. 1 (2022), invalidated his convictions and rendered him innocent of the § 922(g)(3)

charges.

The District Court dismissed Reid’s 01559 and 02134 petitions for lack of

jurisdiction. This timely appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a).1 We exercise

plenary review over a district court’s legal conclusions, and review its factual findings for

clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002)

1 Reid does not need to obtain a COA to proceed with this appeal. See United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012). 3 (per curiam). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment if the appeal fails

to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

A § 2255 motion is the standard means by which a federal prisoner can collaterally

attack the legality of his conviction or sentence. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d

117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner may proceed under § 2241 only if he

demonstrates that a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality

of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). However, the Supreme Court has ruled that this

language—often referred to as § 2255’s “saving clause”—operates only (1) “where

unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the

sentencing court,” or (2) where the litigant is asserting a “challenge[] to detention other

than [a] collateral attack[] on a sentence.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023).

Returning to the cases at hand, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones negated the

underpinnings of Reid’s claims. Reid’s petitions were both premised on the saving

clause of § 2255(e). To the extent that Reid sought relief under Bruen, he presented this

same argument in two 28 U.S.C. § 2244 motions before the Fourth Circuit seeking

permission to file second or successive § 2255 applications, both of which were denied.

See In re Kenneth Roshaun Reid, No. 23-287 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023); In re Kenneth

Roshaun Reid, No. 24-122 (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2024).

In short, in both his 01559 and 02134 petitions, Reid failed to demonstrate that §

2255 was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention” under either of

the two specific circumstances discussed by the Supreme Court. See Jones, 599 U.S. at

478. The District Court therefore properly dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. See

4 Voneida v. Johnson, 88 F.4th 233, 239 (3d Cir. 2023) (remanding with instructions to

dismiss § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction in view of Jones). His appeals do not

present a substantial question, and accordingly we will summarily affirm the judgments

of the District Court. Reid’s motion to order the District Court to properly respond to his

actual innocence claims is likewise denied, as are his motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3).