USA v. Bart Shoupe
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [11-51198 Affirmed] Judge: CES , Judge: PRO , Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 08/06/2012; denying motion for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Mr. Bart Ellis Shoupe [7009490-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Bart Ellis Shoupe [7009475-2] [11-51198]
Date Filed: 06/13/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
June 13, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BART ELLIS SHOUPE,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:11-CV-827
Before STEWART, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Bart Ellis Shoupe, federal prisoner # 44194-080, who was convicted of drug
trafficking in 2004, and whose subsequent direct appeal, and post-conviction
filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, were denied, now has filed a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition challenging his sentence for drug trafficking. The district court
recharacterized his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it as a
successive and unauthorized motion.
Shoupe now seeks a certificate of
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 06/13/2012
appealability (COA) and argues that he may bring his challenge as a § 2241
petition pursuant to the “savings clause” of § 2255. He also moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
Because Shoupe sought relief under § 2241, he is not required to obtain a
COA to appeal the district court’s denial of § 2241 relief. See Padilla v. United
States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). His motion for a COA, therefore, is
denied as unnecessary.
Because Shoupe challenged his sentence, and because § 2255 provides the
primary means of collaterally attacking a federal sentence, the district court did
not err by recharacterizing Shoupe’s petition as a § 2255 motion. Tolliver v.
Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Before Shoupe may file a second or
successive § 2255 motion, he must obtain an order from this court authorizing
the district court to consider a second or successive application. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). Shoupe has not sought or obtained leave to file a second
or successive § 2255 motion. Therefore the district court properly dismissed his
motion as successive and unauthorized. See § 2255(h).
Under the “savings clause” of § 2255, Shoupe may attack his federal
sentence under § 2241 if he shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). The bar against filing successive
§ 2255 motions does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. Tolliver, 211
F.3d at 878. The savings clause applies only to claims that were “foreclosed by
circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s
trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion,” if the claims are “based on a retroactively
applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that petitioner may have
been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243
Date Filed: 06/13/2012
F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
Shoupe asserts that, because of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000), he was charged and then sentenced for the drug amount alleged in his
indictment. He further asserts that, if he had been sentenced after United
States v. Salto, 220 F. App’x 299 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished), his sentence
would not have been based on that particular drug amount. He thus contends,
in a loose analogy to Reyes-Requena, that Salto renders him “innocent” of the
sentence imposed under the sentencing regime in force between Apprendi and
Apprendi did not foreclose challenges to drug quantities used for
sentencing but rather increased the Government’s burden of proving the drug
quantities required for enhanced statutory maximum penalties. See Apprendi,
530 U.S. at 490 (holding that a “fact that increases the penalty for a crime
beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and
proved beyond a reasonable doubt”). In addition, Salto was not a Supreme Court
decision and did not establish that Shoupe may have been convicted of “a
nonexistent offense.” See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904; Salto, 220 F. App’x
at 300-01. Shoupe has not demonstrated that his claim is within the savings
clause. See § 2255(e). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
Because there is no viable ground for an appeal, Shoupe’s motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is denied.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COA DENIED; IFP DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?