Robert Howell v. T. Werlich, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Robert Howell v. T. Werlich, Warden

670 F. App'x 248

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2016

Docket16-30055 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 248 (Robert Howell v. T. Werlich, Warden) 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

Robert Howell v. T. Werlich, Warden, 670 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Nelson Howell, federal prisoner # 09232-026, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the petition, he challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for controlled substance offenses, as well as his conviction for a controlled substance offense in the District of Minnesota.

Section 2241 is the procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in which a sentence is being executed, whereas a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal conviction *249 and sentence. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Howell’s challenge is to the constitutionality of his Illinois and Minnesota convictions, his claims fall under the purview of § 2255 rather than § 2241. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426. A § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. § 2255(a); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Although Howell could seek relief in a § 2241 petition filed in the Western District of Louisiana under § 2255’s “savings clause” if he demonstrated that no adequate or effective relief was available under § 2255 and relief is available under § 2241, see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001), his arguments that his Minnesota conviction was obtained in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that his Illinois conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause do not make the required showing. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Howell’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,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

Robert Nelson Howell, federal prisoner # 09232-026, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the petition, he challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for controlled substance offenses, as well as his conviction for a controlled substance offense in the District of Minnesota.

Section 2241 is the procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in which a sentence is being executed, whereas a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal conviction *249 and sentence. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Howell’s challenge is to the constitutionality of his Illinois and Minnesota convictions, his claims fall under the purview of § 2255 rather than § 2241. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426. A § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. § 2255(a); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Although Howell could seek relief in a § 2241 petition filed in the Western District of Louisiana under § 2255’s “savings clause” if he demonstrated that no adequate or effective relief was available under § 2255 and relief is available under § 2241, see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001), his arguments that his Minnesota conviction was obtained in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that his Illinois conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause do not make the required showing. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Howell’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is DENIED.

*

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)

670 F. App'x 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-howell-v-t-werlich-warden-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack