United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
K. MOON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mohammed Modin Hasan, a federal inmate proceeding pro
se, filed a petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In it, he asserts that the
court in which he was convicted and sentenced lacked
jurisdiction and he also claims that he is actually innocent
of committing piracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1651,
which was one of his convictions. The only relief he seeks is
that this court vacate his conviction and sentence, and it
appears that he is asking for that relief only as to his
conviction on Count 1s, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1651.
(Pet. 7, Dkt. No. 1.) Upon review of the petition, I find
that Hasan has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief under § 2241 and, therefore, I will dismiss his
April, Hasan and a number of co-defendants were indicted in
the Eastern District of Virginia in Criminal Action No.
2:10-cr-00056-1. In November 2010, after an eleven-day jury
trial, Hasan was found guilty of all fourteen counts of the
superseding indictment against him.These included a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1651, piracy under the law of nations, and a
number of related charges. On March 18, 2011, judgment was
entered against him and he was sentenced to a term of life
imprisonment on Count 1s, the § 1651 charge, and to
multiple terms of long sentences (including 240 months, 300
months, and 360 months) on the other counts. Most of those
sentences were to run concurrently with Count 1s, but the
judgment also included two 300-month sentences on Counts 10s
and 11s and a 360-month consecutive sentence on Count 12s,
all to be served consecutive to Count 1s.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed his
convictions and sentence by published opinion, United
States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2012), and the
United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of
certiorari in January 2013. Dire v. United States,
568 U.S. 1145 (2013).
2016, Hasan filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A ruling
on that motion was held in abeyance pending the resolution of
several appellate court cases, but ultimately was denied.
Hasan v. United States, No. 2:10cr56-1 (E.D. Va.
Sept. 30, 2019) (ECF No. 547). The court's opinion in
that case references jurisdictional arguments by Hasan,
albeit perhaps different that the one he raises here. The
court found his arguments to be untimely and, in the
alternative, without merit, and rejected his other arguments,
as well. Hasan appealed, and his appeal remains pending
before the Fourth Circuit, Hasan v. United States,
No. 19-7468 (4th Cir.).
noted, in his instant § 2241 petition, Hasan asserts a
claim of “actual innocence” and also claims that
the court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of a violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1651. He further contends that his claim
that he is actually innocent of his conviction and sentence
are “unrelated to [his] pending 2255 motion.”
a motion pursuant to § 2255, not § 2241, is the
appropriate vehicle for challenging a conviction or the
imposition of a sentence. However, the “savings
clause” in § 2255 allows a prisoner to challenge
the validity of his conviction and/or his sentence by filing
a § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, but only if
he demonstrates that § 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e); see In re Jones, 226 F.3d
328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). A motion pursuant to § 2255
is “inadequate and ineffective” to challenge a
conviction only when (1) settled law established the legality
of the conviction at the time imposed; (2) after the prisoner
has completed his appeal and first § 2255 motion, a
change in substantive law renders the conduct for which the
prisoner was convicted no longer criminal; and (3) the
prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of §
2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law
made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Id. A petitioner must satisfy these
requirements to confer jurisdiction on the § 2241 court
to evaluate the merits of a petitioner's claims.
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 423-26 (4th
petition does not identify any change in substantive law
sufficient to satisfy In re Jones, but regardless,
he cannot satisfy the second element above because he filed
his § 2241 petition in this case while his first §
2255 motion was pending. Thus, any change in law did not
occur “after [he] completed his appeal and first §
2255 motion.” Accordingly, I find that Hasan fails to
meet the In re Jones standard to show that §
2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of
his conviction and, thus, his claims cannot be addressed
under § 2241.
reasons stated herein, I will dismiss Hasan's petition.
All other motions will be dismissed as moot. An appropriate
order will be entered.