Filed: Oct. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 2, 2019 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court RONALD TITLBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 19-3095 v. (D.C. No. 5:19-CV-03023-JWL) (D. Kan.) NICOLE ENGLISH, Warden, USP- Leavenworth, Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Applicant Ronald Titlbach, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his application fo
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 2, 2019 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court RONALD TITLBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 19-3095 v. (D.C. No. 5:19-CV-03023-JWL) (D. Kan.) NICOLE ENGLISH, Warden, USP- Leavenworth, Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Applicant Ronald Titlbach, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his application for..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 2, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RONALD TITLBACH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 19-3095
v. (D.C. No. 5:19-CV-03023-JWL)
(D. Kan.)
NICOLE ENGLISH, Warden, USP-
Leavenworth,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Applicant Ronald Titlbach, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial
of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas. We need not address the merits of Applicant’s argument, because
his sole remedy was under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously
that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under
the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
10th Cir. R. 32.1.
On March 6, 2001, a federal jury in the Northern District of Iowa found Applicant
guilty of drug violations. On November 8, 2004, he filed a § 2255 motion in that district,
and the district court denied relief on December 4, 2006. See United States v. Titlbach,
No. 00-cr-00025,
2006 WL 3497273, at *1, *3 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 4, 2006). It does not
appear that Applicant appealed this decision. He filed his § 2241 application in the
District of Kansas on February 5, 2019. Applicant argued that he has been wrongfully
imprisoned because Public Law 80-772, which is the federal criminal code, was not
properly enacted by Congress. The district court dismissed his application on March 8,
2019, after determining that the argument was legally frivolous.
“A § 2255 motion . . . is generally the exclusive remedy for a federal prisoner
seeking to attack the legality of detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed
the sentence.” Brace v. United States,
634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011) (brackets
and internal quotation marks omitted). Although § 2255’s savings clause permits a
federal prisoner to proceed under § 2241 if a § 2255 “motion is inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), that exception will rarely be
available to challenge a conviction or sentence. See
Brace, 634 F.3d at 1169. “The
petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the remedy in § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective.”
Id.
Applicant has failed to establish the ineffectiveness or unavailability of the § 2255
remedy. The mere fact that his § 2255 motion would be unsuccessful or that he would be
precluded from filing a second § 2255 motion does not render § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective. See Cleaver v. Maye,
773 F.3d 230, 233 (10th Cir. 2014).
2
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
3