David Martindale v. Rodney Chandler
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10056 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 08/11/2014 [14-10056]
Case: 14-10056
Document: 00512670468
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/19/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-10056
Summary Calendar
FILED
June 19, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DAVID MARTINDALE,
Petitioner−Appellant,
versus
RODNEY W. CHANDLER,
Respondent−Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-931
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
David Martindale, federal prisoner #39160-177, appeals the denial of his
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*
Case: 14-10056
Document: 00512670468
Page: 2
Date Filed: 06/19/2014
No. 14-10056
petition for writ of habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He contended that his 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm
was unconstitutionally enhanced in violation of Alleyne v. United States, 133
S. Ct. 2151 (2013), because he did not admit the facts necessary for an enhancement based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The district court determined that
Martindale could not pursue relief under § 2241 because he had failed to show
that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective as
required by the savings clause of § 2255.
We review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Kinder v. Purdy,
222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). A federal prisoner may attack the validity
of his conviction in a § 2241 petition if he can meet the requirements of the
savings clause. Id. He must show that the remedy under § 2255 would be
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). A petitioner’s
inability to meet the procedural requirements of § 2255 is insufficient to make
the required showing. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 451, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2000).
Instead, he must establish that his claim “is based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted
of a nonexistent offense” and that the claim “was foreclosed by circuit law at
the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first
§ 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
Martindale asserts that his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced in
light of Alleyne and that Alleyne announced a new rule of criminal law that
should apply to his case and that, pursuant to McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct.
1924 (2013), he is actually innocent. Alleyne and Perkins, however, do not
establish that Martindale’s claims are based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court opinion indicating that he was convicted of a nonexistent
2
Case: 14-10056
Document: 00512670468
Page: 3
Date Filed: 06/19/2014
No. 14-10056
offense and that his claims were foreclosed when they otherwise should have
been raised. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
Finally, Martindale avers that the district court erred by assigning his
base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(2); that the penalties in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)
violate the Eighth Amendment because his sentence was disproportionate to
the crime; and that the court failed to address the claims overlooked by the
magistrate judge. We do not consider these claims because they are raised for
the first time on appeal. See Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 n.1 (5th Cir.
2011).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
3
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?