Michael J. Chomos v. WARDEN T.R. SNIEZEK On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle…

BLD-301 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2633
___________
MICHAEL J. CHOMOS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN T.R. SNIEZEK
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 09-cv-00759)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6(a)
August 27, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 23, 2009 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Michael Chomos, a pro se prisoner, appeals from the District Court’s
denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the

-- 1 of 3 --

Chomos is presently confined at FPC-Schuykill.1
2
reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm. See I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In February 2008, Chomos was named in a four count indictment in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In July 2008, after entering
pleading guilty to count four of the indictment, Chomos was sentenced to a term of
twenty-four months of imprisonment, followed by a twenty-four months of supervised
release. In March 2009, Chomos filed a “motion for early release” in the District Court in
which he was sentenced.
While that motion was still pending, in April 2009, Chomos filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania – the District of his confinement. After reviewing1
the motion, in which Chomos argued primarily that his due process rights had been
violated when he entered his guilty plea, the District Court dismissed Chomos’ habeas
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court's legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous
standard to its factual findings. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536,
538 (3d Cir. 2002). Upon review, we agree with the District Court that Chomos may

-- 2 of 3 --

3
raise his claims only in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Challenges to the legality of federal convictions or sentences that are allegedly in
violation of the Constitution may generally be brought in the district of sentencing
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1974).
Further, constitutional claims may not be raised in a § 2241 petition except in unusual
situations, where the remedy by motion under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective.
See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251-52 (3d Cir. 1997). We agree with the District
Court that Chomos has not demonstrated that a § 2255 motion provides inadequate or
ineffective means to raise his constitutional claims. Id.
As Chomos’ appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Chomos’ “Motion for Rule 23(b)(3) Release
Pending Review of Decision” is also denied.

-- 3 of 3 --