Alonzo Molina v. Rick Marques

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 8, 2020
• Docket: 19-11120
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-11120 Document: 00515594332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED October 8, 2020 No. 19-11120 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Alonzo Molina,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Rick Marques, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Big Spring,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CV-120

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Alonzo Molina, federal prisoner # 93283-280, appeals the district court’s dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his federal sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-11120 Document: 00515594332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

No. 19-11120

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court determined that Molina’s attack on his sentence could not proceed under § 2241 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause. As Molina’s sentence was imposed by the Western District of Texas, the district court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review it under § 2255. Because Molina attacks the legality rather than the conditions of his federal sentence, he must seek relief under § 2255, and he must do so in the court that sentenced him. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court accordingly lacked jurisdiction over Molina’s § 2241 petition. See id. at 452. Furthermore, Molina may not invoke § 2255(e)’s savings clause to proceed under § 2241 because he cannot demonstrate that, in light of a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, he “was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime.” Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court holdings Molina cites—Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)—are not retroactive. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2015). Issues of retroactivity aside, Molina’s claims stem from his disagreement with how his sentence was calculated, which does not implicate his conviction; therefore, the savings clause cannot afford him relief. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 427. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.