James Baker v. Rachel Chapa, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50243 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 10/14/2014 [14-50243]

Case: 14-50243

Document: 00512741565

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/21/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 14-50243
Summary Calendar

August 21, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JAMES E. BAKER,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
RACHEL CHAPA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna;
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CV-6
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James E. Baker, federal prisoner # 16137-064, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Baker challenged, relying on Alleyne v. United Sates, 133 S. Ct 2151
(2013), and Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), the
enhancement to his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 14-50243

Document: 00512741565

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/21/2014

No. 14-50243
district court denied relief, concluding that such allegations should be
presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Baker had not established
that he was entitled to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e), which
allows a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction under § 2241 if the
remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.”
A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate
or ineffective must make a claim (i) “based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been
convicted of a nonexistent offense” that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the
time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal,
or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01
(5th Cir. 2001). Both Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2163, and Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at
2282, address sentencing issues and have no effect on whether the facts of
Baker’s case would support his conviction for the substantive offense. See
Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, neither Alleyne nor Descamps is a retroactively available
Supreme Court decision indicating that Baker was convicted of a nonexistent
offense. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2