Mace v. Rickard

Background

Phillip Thurston Mace filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. He represented himself. He sought to challenge the imposition of a June 26, 2020 sentence entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to the petition, Virginia authorities charged Mace with possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He pleaded guilty to the drug-trafficking offense and the firearm offense. The Eastern District of Virginia sentenced him to 60 months on each offense, with the sentences running consecutively. The opinion states that Mace did not appeal the judgment or file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Mace argued that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective and that he could therefore proceed under § 2241’s savings clause. He described the firearm possession as part of a barter transaction in which he provided heroin and fentanyl to an undercover officer in exchange for two Glock firearms. He argued that this conduct was not possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that § 2255 generally is the proper procedure for a federal prisoner challenging a conviction or sentence. Section 2241 generally concerns the execution of a sentence, such as parole decisions or confinement conditions. A prisoner may use § 2241 under the savings clause only in limited circumstances, including when § 2255 is unavailable, the prisoner can show actual innocence based on the existing record, and the claim could not effectively have been raised earlier.

The court concluded that Mace had not met those requirements. First, it held that § 2255 was not unavailable merely because a future motion might be late. Mace had never filed a § 2255 motion, so the restriction on multiple motions did not apply to him, and the possible one-year filing deadline did not make § 2255 unavailable.

Second, the court held that Mace did not allege actual innocence as that term is normally used in this context. He did not claim that he failed to provide drugs in exchange for firearms; instead, he argued that the conduct did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the firearm possession be in furtherance of drug trafficking. The court also found that he alleged no facts showing that he could not have raised his arguments earlier on appeal or in a § 2255 motion. The court noted that Mace did not identify an intervening change in controlling law supporting his position.

Disposition

The court held that Mace could not challenge his conviction under § 2241. It did not recharacterize the petition as a § 2255 motion. Because the conviction and sentence arose in the Eastern District of Virginia, the court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action there under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), in the interest of justice. The order states that the case was closed in the Southern District of New York; it does not decide the merits of Mace’s underlying statutory argument.

The court also determined that the motion did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.