Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Clinton McCORVEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. J.P. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-30023
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 7, 2012.
    James Clinton McCorvey, Jr., Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, James Clinton McCorvey, Jr., federal prisoner # 06261-017, contests the lack-of-jurisdiction dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenges his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for his federal convictions for possession, with intent to distribute, cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. McCorvey’s sentence was enhanced under the ACCA, based on a prior drug offense and prior Florida convictions for felony battery and battery on a law enforcement officer. McCorvey contends the ACCA enhancement is inapplicable because the Supreme Court decided, after he was sentenced, that a prior battery conviction under Florida law is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010).

Regarding denial of a § 2241 petition, a district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir.2005). McCorvey’s contention that his “actual-innocence” claim is cognizable in a § 2241 petition, by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s “savings clause”, is foreclosed by Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir.2000), which held: petitioner’s claim he is actually innocent of being a career offender is not the type of contention that warrants review under § 2241 because petitioner is not asserting he is actually innocent of the underlying crime for which he was convicted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.