Carlos Gonzalez v. J. S. Willis, Warden
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50141 Affirmed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JLD, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 06/15/2017 [16-50141]
Date Filed: 04/24/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
April 24, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
CARLOS PAUL GONZALEZ,
J. S. WILLIS, Warden,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-402
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Paul Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 82609-179, appeals the denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 135-month sentence for
conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. He argues that the district court
erred by dismissing his claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over his case and that his sentence violated his ex post facto rights.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 04/24/2017
We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition. Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Generally, claims of trial or sentencing
errors are not properly raised in a § 2241 petition. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d
876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). However, a § 2241 petition that attacks a federal
sentence may be considered if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To satisfy this
“savings clause,” the petitioner must show that the claims are “based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that
petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and that the
claims were previously “foreclosed by circuit law.” Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
As the district court correctly determined, Gonzalez has failed to make
such a showing. Contrary to Gonzalez’s assertion, the denial of his prior § 2255
motion does not, in and of itself, establish that § 2255 relief is inadequate. See
Pack, 218 F.3d at 452-53. Nor does Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072,
2078 (2013), which addressed an application of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, establish that Gonzalez was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See
Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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?