Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0888-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald P. GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-35013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Ronald P. Green, Talladega, AL, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Ronald P. Green appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Green contends that he is actually innocent of being a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and therefore he should be allowed to proceed with his section 2241 petition under the “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This contention is foreclosed. See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2012) (“[T]he purely legal argument that a petitioner was wrongly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines is not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence under the escape hatch.”). The district court correctly dismissed his petition. See id.

We construe Green’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.