Filed: Oct. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCT 15, 2010 No. 09-16447 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 09-00362-CV-OC-10GRJ CLEVELAND WINSTON KILGORE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (October 15, 2010) Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: P
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCT 15, 2010 No. 09-16447 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 09-00362-CV-OC-10GRJ CLEVELAND WINSTON KILGORE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (October 15, 2010) Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pr..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 15, 2010
No. 09-16447 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00362-CV-OC-10GRJ
CLEVELAND WINSTON KILGORE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 15, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pro se appellant-petitioner Cleveland Winston Kilgore, a federal prisoner,
appeals the court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.
Kilgore was convicted of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft and
sentenced to 149 months’ imprisonment in federal district court in Maryland. The
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Although
Kilgore never filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he did file two
challenges to his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his
conviction was null and void.
After the district court in Maryland dismissed his motions, Kilgore filed
another § 2241 habeas petition in the district court in South Carolina, where he was
incarcerated. When Kilgore was transferred to a correctional institution in Florida,
his petition was reassigned to the district court in the Middle District of Florida,
where it was denied with prejudice. Kilgore now appeals the denial of his § 2241
petition.
The availability of habeas relief under § 2241 presents a question of law that
we review de novo. Cook v. Wiley,
208 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000).
Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must
be brought under § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder,
326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003).
A provision of § 2255 known as the savings clause, however, permits a federal
prisoner, under limited circumstances, to file a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241.
2
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2255(e).
A § 2241 petition may only be entertained under § 2255’s savings clause if
the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The
savings clause applies to a claim when: (1) that claim is based upon a retroactively
applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the holding of that Supreme Court decision
establishes that the petitioner was convicted for a nonexistent offense; and
(3) circuit law squarely foreclosed such a claim at the time it otherwise should have
been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. Wofford v.
Scott,
177 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 1999).
After a review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly
dismissed Kilgore’s petition because he failed to show that his claim was based on
a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision. His inability to make this
showing denies him access to § 2255’s savings clause and relief under § 2241.
We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order dismissing Kilgore’s § 2241
petition.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because we affirm on this ground, we do not address the district court’s conclusion that
Kilgore’s petition was successive or an abuse of the writ.
3