Samuel Wallace v. M. Carvajal, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Samuel Wallace v. M. Carvajal, Warden

689 F. App'x 300

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 2017

Docket16-30322 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 689 F. App'x 300 (Samuel Wallace v. M. Carvajal, 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

Samuel Wallace v. M. Carvajal, Warden, 689 F. App'x 300 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Samuel Wallace, federal prisoner # 21263-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Wallace sought to challenge the sentence imposed following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He contends that he should have been permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its determination of issues of law de novo. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his sentence must file a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Id. at 452.

However, under § 2255(e), the so-called “savings clause,” a federal prisoner may attack the legality of his sentence in a § 2241 petition if he establishes that no adequate or effective relief is attainable by motion under § 2255. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) To satisfy § 2255(e)’s “savings clause,'” Wallace was required to make an affirmative showing that [he] would present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id. at 904.

Wallace did not make the. requisite showing, and his reliance on Persaud v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1023, 188 L.Ed.2d 117 (2014) (mem.), is *301 unavailing. The district court’s judgment 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: *

Samuel Wallace, federal prisoner # 21263-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Wallace sought to challenge the sentence imposed following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He contends that he should have been permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its determination of issues of law de novo. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his sentence must file a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Id. at 452.

However, under § 2255(e), the so-called “savings clause,” a federal prisoner may attack the legality of his sentence in a § 2241 petition if he establishes that no adequate or effective relief is attainable by motion under § 2255. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) To satisfy § 2255(e)’s “savings clause,'” Wallace was required to make an affirmative showing that [he] would present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id. at 904.

Wallace did not make the. requisite showing, and his reliance on Persaud v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1023, 188 L.Ed.2d 117 (2014) (mem.), is *301 unavailing. The district court’s judgment 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)

689 F. App'x 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-wallace-v-m-carvajal-warden-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack