Hinojosa v. Morrison

Fifth Circuit

Hinojosa v. Morrison

82 F. App'x 952

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 2003

Docket03-40695

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 F. App'x 952 (Hinojosa v. Morrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinojosa v. Morrison, 82 F. App'x 952 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Ruben Hinojosa, federal prisoner # 64378-079, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Hinojosa was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 151 months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Hinojosa argues that he is entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he was foreclosed from raising an Apprendi ** claim at the time of his guilty plea. He argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not provide him with an adequate remedy and that the failure to address his claims would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Hinojosa’s Apprendi claims do not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s “savings clause.” Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir .2002); Reyes-Reguena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Hinojosa’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

**

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Ruben Hinojosa, federal prisoner # 64378-079, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Hinojosa was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 151 months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Hinojosa argues that he is entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he was foreclosed from raising an Apprendi ** claim at the time of his guilty plea. He argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not provide him with an adequate remedy and that the failure to address his claims would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Hinojosa’s Apprendi claims do not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s “savings clause.” Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir .2002); Reyes-Reguena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Hinojosa’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir R. 47.5.4.

**

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinojosa-v-morrison-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack