Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40925/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40925

Summary Calendar

JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

N. VASQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CV-514

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Jimmy Lee Sharbutt, federal prisoner # 09112-062, 

appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

for habeas corpus relief. Sharbutt challenged the enhancement to his sentence 

pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, following his conviction of being 

a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied relief, concluding 

that such allegations should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40925 Document: 00512999820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-40925

that Sharbutt had not established that he was entitled to proceed under the 

savings clause of § 2255(e), which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his 

conviction under § 2241 if the remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate 

or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate 

or ineffective must make a claim (i) “based on a retroactively applicable 

Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been

convicted of a nonexistent offense” and that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law 

at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, 

appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 

904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Because Sharbutt essentially claims that he is innocent of his sentence 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act, rather than his offense of conviction, 

he has failed to make the showing required by Reyes-Requena. Sharbutt’s 

contention that Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014), stands for the 

proposition that sentencing enhancements based on ineligible prior convictions 

are errors amenable to § 2241 relief is unavailing as Persaud is not a 

substantive decision.

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40925 Document: 00512999820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015