James Baker v. Marina Medina

Filing 511136556

James Baker v. Marina Medina

Doc. 511136556

Case: 09-31179

Document: 00511136556

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/09/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31179 S u m m a r y Calendar June 9, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J A M E S E BAKER, P e titio n e r -A p p e lla n t v. M A R IN A MEDINA, R e s p o n d e n t-A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 1:09-CV-1468

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J a m e s E. Baker, federal prisoner # 16137-064, is serving a 235-month s e n t e n c e for possession of ammunition by a felon. His conviction and sentence w e r e affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Baker, 508 F.3d 1321, 1330 (1 0 t h Cir. 2007). Baker filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the presentence report incorrectly recommended an e n h a n c e m e n t under the Armed Career Criminal Act since his civil liberties as t o his 1997 burglary conviction had been restored under Kansas law. The
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31179

Document: 00511136556 Page: 2 No. 09-31179

Date Filed: 06/09/2010

d is tr ic t court determined that Baker could not proceed under § 2241 because his c la im did not satisfy the requirements of the "savings clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. S e c tio n 2255 provides the main vehicle to raise a collateral challenge to a fe d e r a l sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2 2 5 5 relief is the remedy for "errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing." Cox v . Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal q u o t a t io n marks and citation omitted). In contrast, § 2241 is used to raise a c h a lle n g e to "the manner in which a sentence is executed." Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 8 7 7 . A petition filed under § 2241 that raises errors "that occurr[ed] at trial or s e n t e n c in g is properly construed [as arising] under § 2255." Id. at 877-78. B a k e r is challenging the factual correctness of his sentence enhancement. As s u c h , Baker's claim arose at the latest during his sentencing and must be p r e s e n te d under § 2255. See Cox, 911 F.2d at 1113; see also Warren v. Miles, 230 F .3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000). I f a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy would be " `in a d e q u a t e or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner's] detention,'" he m a y be permitted to bring a habeas corpus claim pursuant to § 2241 under the " s a v in g s clause." See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th C ir . 2001) (quoting § 2255). "[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which e s ta b l is h e s that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense a n d (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should h a v e been raised in the petitioner's trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion." Id. at 9 0 4 . Baker has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on th e savings clause of § 2255(e). A F F IR M E D . The judgment of the district court is

2