Tiayon Evans v. Warden Loretto FCI

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. DLD-105. Appellant's motion for expedited summary reversal is denied.

Case: 16-4227

Document: 003112532720

Page: 1

DLD-105

Date Filed: 02/07/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-4227
___________
TIAYON KARDELL EVANS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN LORETTO FCI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-16-cv-00227)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 19, 2017
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 7, 2017)
_________
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.

Case: 16-4227

Document: 003112532720

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/07/2017

Tiayon Kardell Evans, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania, is currently serving a 240-month sentence for
multiple federal drug-trafficking convictions. Specifically, the record reflects that, in
2005, Evans was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on multiple counts of conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine base, and other
related offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(B)(iii),
(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The convictions and sentences were affirmed
on direct appeal. Evans v. United States, 223 F. App’x 288 (4th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(not precedential). Between 2006 and 2010, Evans filed several motions to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia denied each motion. See United States v. Evans, E.D. Va. No. 2:04-cr-00099
(Doc. Nos. 52, 73, 87, 89).
In October 2016, Evans filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania asserting that the criminal
court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case because the charges arose under
Title 21 of the United States Code, a title which was never enacted into positive law. The
District Court summarily denied the § 2241 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Evans now
appeals and has moved the Court for an expedited ruling and summary reversal.

2

Case: 16-4227

Document: 003112532720

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/07/2017

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its
factual findings. See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 239 n.3 (3d Cir.
2005).
We will deny Evans’s motion and summarily affirm the District Court’s order
because no substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6. Leaving aside the question of whether Evans’s claim is anything other than
frivolous, his challenge to the validity of his conviction and sentence must be raised—if
anywhere—in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 addressed to the criminal court. As we
have previously explained, Ҥ 2255 must be used to raise a challenge to the validity of a
[federal prisoner’s] conviction or sentence unless that section is ‘inadequate or
ineffective.’” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). Section 2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” in Evans’s case merely
because he was previously denied relief under § 2555. Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg
USP, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 33552, at *3 (3d Cir. 2017). Because Evans’s claim falls
within the purview of § 2255, he cannot raise it via § 2241.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order denying Evans
relief under § 2241. Appellant’s motion for expedited summary reversal is denied.

1

A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal from the denial of a federal
prisoner’s § 2241 petition. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
3