Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-00524/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-00524-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CALVIN F. TANNEHILL,

Petitioner,

v.

B. H. ROMERO, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-0524-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner Calvin F. Tannehill asks the Court to 

issue a writ of habeas corpus concerning his federal sentence. (Doc. 1). In his initial 

petition, Mr. Tannehill challenges his 2008 sentence under Count One for his

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) because the district court enhanced his sentence 

pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). (Doc. 1). In a 

proposed amendment to his petition, relying on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 

2191 (2019), Mr. Tannehill also challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 

(Docs. 11, 13). 

On November 8, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom this case was referred 

entered a report in which he recommended that the court dismiss Mr. Tannehill’s 

§2241 petition because the court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. (Doc. 12). The 

magistrate judge also found that Mr. Tannehill’s proposed amendment to his petition 

FILED

 2020 Jan-06 PM 12:00

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:19-cv-00524-MHH-JHE Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
2

was futile, so the magistrate judge denied Mr. Tannehill’s motion to amend his 

petition. (Doc. 12, p. 6 n. 3). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Tannehill of his 

right to object to the report. (Doc. 12, p. 7). In response to the report, Mr. Tannehill

re-filed his motion to amend his petition and asked the Court to address the merits 

of his motion. (Doc. 13; see Doc. 13, p. 13).

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews 

for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection is made, and the Court 

reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th 

Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per 

curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the 

magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings 

adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) 

(internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 

2006). 

Mr. Tannehill asserts that Rehaif v. United States constitutes an intervening 

change in the law that warrants relief from his conviction as a felon in possession of 

Case 1:19-cv-00524-MHH-JHE Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
3

a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (Doc. 13, p. 1). In Rehaif, the United 

States Supreme Court held that, in prosecutions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 

924(a)(2), “the Government must prove that a defendant knows of his status as a 

person barred from possessing a firearm.” 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195 (2019). The 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Rehaif did not announce a new rule 

of law, and even if it did, the new rule should apply only prospectively to future 

cases. In re Wright, 942 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2019). In Wright, the Court of Appeals 

stated:

In In re Palacios, we determined that the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 

594 (2019), did not announce a new rule of constitutional law but rather 

clarified the requirements for prosecuting an individual under 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). 931 F.3d 1314, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019) (denying 

an application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion that was 

premised on Rehaif). Further, we determined that, even if Rehaif had 

announced a new rule of constitutional law, the Supreme Court has not 

made that decision retroactive to cases on collateral review. Id.

942 F.3d at 1064-65.

Even if Rehaif could somehow apply to Mr. Tannehill’s 2008 sentence, as the 

magistrate judge explained, Mr. Tannehill must raise his argument in a § 2255 

motion, not in a § 2241 habeas petition because Mr. Tannehill challenges the fact of

his conviction and sentence, and not the execution of the sentence. McCarthan v. 

Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1009 (11th Cir. 

2017). Because § 2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 

Case 1:19-cv-00524-MHH-JHE Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
4

detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. 

Tannehill’s § 2241 petition. See, e.g., Nipper v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium,

688 Fed. Appx. 851, 852 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The savings clause does not apply to 

claims based on new rules of constitutional law–such claims must be brought in a 

second or successive § 2255 motion under § 2255(h)(2).”) (citing Williams v. 

Warden, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1342-43 (11th Cir. 2013)).

Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, the Court 

adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. Accordingly,

the Court dismisses this § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. 

A separate final order will be entered.

DONE this 6th day of January, 2020.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00524-MHH-JHE Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4