Filed: Mar. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 18-30892 Document: 00514894850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-30892 March 29, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LOUIS JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-638 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Summary: Case: 18-30892 Document: 00514894850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-30892 March 29, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LOUIS JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-638 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * ..
More
Case: 18-30892 Document: 00514894850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-30892 March 29, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LOUIS JAMES,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:18-CV-638
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Louis James, federal prisoner # 14248-026, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his convictions
for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base,
carrying and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court for the
Western District of Louisiana, where James was incarcerated at the time he
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-30892 Document: 00514894850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30892
filed his § 2241 petition, found that he did not meet the requirements of the
savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Because the district court dismissed the
§ 2241 petition on the pleadings, this court’s review is de novo. See Pack v.
Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
A petitioner may use § 2241 to challenge his conviction only if the remedy
under § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
§ 2255(e). A § 2241 petition cannot be used as a substitute for a § 2255 motion,
and the petitioner must demonstrate the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a
§ 2255 motion by satisfying the savings clause of § 2255. See § 2255(e); Jeffers
v. Chandler,
253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Reyes-Requena v. United States,
243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Under that clause, James must show that
his petition sets forth a claim based on a retroactively applicable Supreme
Court decision that supports that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent
offense and that the claim was foreclosed when it should have been asserted in
his trial, direct appeal, or original § 2255 motion. See
Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d
at 904.
James contends only that the district court erred by construing his
petition as bringing claims under Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), and Welch v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016). Although he asserts
that the correct legal standard for his claims is Davis v. United States,
417 U.S.
333 (1974), he fails to cite any retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision,
unavailable at the time of his first § 2255 motion, that establishes he may have
been convicted of a nonexistent offense or to otherwise explain how relief under
§ 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective. See
Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830; Reyes-
Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2