Samuel Wallace v. M. Carvajal, Warden


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30322 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/30/2017 [16-30322]

Download PDF
Case: 16-30322 Document: 00513984997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-30322 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 9, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SAMUEL WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant v. M. D. CARVAJAL, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Pollock, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:16-CV-100 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel Wallace, federal prisoner # 21263-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Wallace sought to challenge the sentence imposed following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He contends that he should have been permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-30322 Document: 00513984997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2017 No. 16-30322 We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its determination of issues of law de novo. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his sentence must file a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Id. at 452. However, under § 2255(e), the so-called “savings clause,” a federal prisoner may attack the legality of his sentence in a § 2241 petition if he establishes that no adequate or effective relief is attainable by motion under § 2255. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) To satisfy § 2255(e)’s “savings clause,” Wallace was required to make an affirmative showing that [he] would present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id. at 904. Wallace did not make the requisite showing, and his reliance on Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014) (mem.), is unavailing. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

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?