Summary
The Fifth Circuit held that a federal prisoner's § 2241 habeas petition challenging his ACCA-enhanced sentence did not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255(e) because the clause only applies to claims that the petitioner was convicted of a nonexistent offense, not to challenges to the validity of an enhanced sentence. The court vacated the district court's dismissal on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as Carter's Johnson and Mathis claims attacked only his sentence, not his underlying conviction. This case reinforces the Fifth Circuit's rule that the savings clause does not permit § 2241 petitions for sentence-only challenges, even when based on retroactive Supreme Court decisions.
Holdings
- Carter's claims do not fit within the savings clause because they challenge the validity of his enhanced sentence, not his conviction. The savings clause applies only to claims that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.
Questions Presented
- Whether Carter's § 2241 petition challenging his ACCA-enhanced sentence fits within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) so that the district court had jurisdiction to consider it.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (10)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)(cited)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016)(cited)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016)(cited)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001)(relied on)
- Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005)(relied on)
- Sharbutt v. Vasquez, 136 S. Ct. 2538 (2016) (mem.)(distinguished)
- Robinson v. United States, 812 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 2016)(cited)
- Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001)(cited)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451-54 (5th Cir. 2000)(relied on)
- Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir. 2003)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.