ALD-042 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-2662 ___________ SHABBAR RAFIQ, Appellant v. WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01317) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 December 1, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 28, 2022) _________ 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. Shabbar Rafiq appeals pro se from an order of the District Court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. I. In 2016, Rafiq pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and controlled substance analogue in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced to 144 months’ incarceration. Rafiq appealed, challenging a forfeiture order entered by the District Court, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Rafiq, 745 F. App’x 241, 242 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Rafiq then filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Northern District of Texas, raising several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied his motion, and after granting a certificate of appealability with respect to one claim—that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Rafiq of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea—the Fifth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Rafiq, No. 20-11168, 2022 WL 2387348 (5th Cir. July 1, 2022). Rafiq later unsuccessfully sought authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See In re Shabbar Rafiq, C.A. No. 22-10679 (order entered July 28, 2022). Shortly thereafter, Rafiq filed this § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the district in which he is incarcerated, 2 appearing to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a claim that he is actually innocent based on laboratory reports showing an absence of controlled substances in the incense forming the basis of his conviction. Rafiq argued that he could seek relief under § 2241 because the sentencing court did not consider all his claims in reviewing his § 2255 motion, and because he is actually innocent. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Rafiq now appeals. II. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review factual findings for clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We may summarily affirm if the appeal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals