Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Benitez v. FCI Phoenix
Citation: 27 F. App'x 917Docket: No. 01-15181; D.C. No. CV-00-01864-EHC
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 27, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Maria Benitez appeals the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, which challenged her federal conviction for attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the dismissal de novo, ultimately affirming the district court's decision. Benitez previously filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in Illinois, which was denied without a certificate of appealability. She then sought relief through a § 2241 motion in Arizona, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Benitez argues that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, thus permitting her to file a § 2241 petition. The court finds her arguments unconvincing. First, her claim regarding a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not justify § 2241 relief, as § 2255 encompasses treaty violations. Second, the absence of an evidentiary hearing in her § 2255 motion does not indicate that the remedy was inadequate; the proper recourse would have been to appeal the denial. Benitez also claims that two of her challenges relate to post-sentencing events affecting her sentence's execution, specifically referencing the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey. However, she fails to demonstrate that she filed a petition with the Sentencing Commission or that any failure to act impacted her sentence. Furthermore, the court concludes that Apprendi does not retroactively invalidate her conviction since her sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the amount of cocaine involved. Ultimately, Benitez has not met her burden to show that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. The district court's dismissal of her § 2241 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore affirmed. The ruling is not to be published or cited in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.