James Baker v. Rachel Chapa

Fifth Circuit

James Baker v. Rachel Chapa

578 F. App'x 464

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 2014

Docket14-50243

StatusUnpublished

This text of 578 F. App'x 464 (James Baker v. Rachel Chapa) 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

James Baker v. Rachel Chapa, 578 F. App'x 464 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

James E. Baker, federal prisoner # 16137-064, appeals the district court’s *465 dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Baker challenged, relying on Alleyne v. United Sates, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and Descamps v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), the enhancement to his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court denied relief, concluding that such allegations should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Baker had not established that he was entitled to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e), which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction under § 2241 if the remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective must make a claim (i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir.2001). Both Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163, and Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2282, address sentencing issues and have no effect on whether the facts of Baker’s case would support his conviction for the substantive offense. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, neither Alleyne nor Descamps is a retroactively available Supreme Court decision indicating that Baker was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See id.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

James E. Baker, federal prisoner # 16137-064, appeals the district court’s *465 dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Baker challenged, relying on Alleyne v. United Sates, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and Descamps v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), the enhancement to his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court denied relief, concluding that such allegations should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Baker had not established that he was entitled to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e), which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction under § 2241 if the remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective must make a claim (i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir.2001). Both Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163, and Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2282, address sentencing issues and have no effect on whether the facts of Baker’s case would support his conviction for the substantive offense. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, neither Alleyne nor Descamps is a retroactively available Supreme Court decision indicating that Baker was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See id.

The judgment of the district court 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 F. App'x 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-baker-v-rachel-chapa-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack