BROADCASTS.com

b'

137 Years in Prison for Insurance Fraud & Arson  

How to Deter Insurance Fraud  

A prisoner seeking relief from a lengthy sentence failed after multiple  efforts as a pro se applicant. In Ali Darwich v. Warden Lewisburg USP;  Attorney General United States Of America, No. 22-2280, United States  Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (October 14, 2022), Ali Darwich, a  federal prisoner currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in  Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (\\u201cUSP Lewisburg\\u201d), appealed pro se from the  District Court\\u2019s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas  corpus under 28 U.S.C. \\xa7 2241. 

FACTS  In 2013, a jury in the Eastern District of Michigan convicted Darwich of  thirty-three counts related to arson and insurance fraud, including  seven counts of using fire to commit fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. \\xa7  844(h)(1). He was sentenced to a total term of 1647 months or 137 years  of imprisonment.  He tried multiple times to avoid the sentence only to have the United  States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, and the United  States Supreme Court denied Darwich\\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari  in United States v. Darwich, 574 Fed.Appx. 582 (6th Cir. 2014), cert.  denied, 574 U.S. 1200 (2015). Darwich then moved to vacate, set aside,  or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. \\xa7 2255. The District Court  denied the motion, in United States v. Darwich, No. 2:10-CR-20705, 2016  WL 146662 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2016), and the Sixth Circuit denied  Darwich\\u2019s request for a certificate of appealability, in Darwich v.  United States, No. 16-1151 (6th Cir. August 5, 2016) (order). Darwich  continued to file numerous unsuccessful motions for authorization to  file second or successive \\xa7 2255 motions.  In 2022, Darwich filed a petition for relief under \\xa7 2241, which the  District Court construed as raising three claims: (1) that Darwich\\u2019s  conviction and sentence are unlawful under United States v. Davis, 588  U.S.__, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137  (1995), and Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993); (2) that he was  subjected to selective prosecution because of his race or ethnicity; and  (3) that the sentencing court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.  The District Court dismissed the petition, concluding that Darwich  failed to show that \\xa7 2255 was an \\u201cinadequate or ineffective\\u201d remedy so  that his claims could be considered under \\xa7 224. 

ANALYSIS  Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \\xa7 2255 are the presumptive means by which  federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences. A habeas  corpus petition under \\xa7 2241 accordingly \\u201cshall not be entertained\\u201d  unless a \\xa7 2255 motion would be \\u201cinadequate or ineffective to test the  legality of [petitioner\\u2019s] detention.\\u201d A \\xa7 2255 motion is inadequate or  ineffective only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation  of scope or procedure would prevent a \\xa7 2255 proceeding from affording  him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.  The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court\\u2019s determination that  Darwich failed to make the showing necessary to meet the safety-valve  exception.