Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-04-10014/USCOURTS-ca5-04-10014-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10014

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIAM HERBERT HARWOOD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

L.E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center -- Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1437-A

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Herbert Harwood, federal prisoner # 03210-063,

convicted in Oklahoma and incarcerated in Texas, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenging his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction. The district

court determined that Harwood failed to satisfy the requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause to allow him to raise his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

 Case: 04-10014 Document: 0051294059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2004
No. 04-10014

-2-

Harwood argues that, in light of Bailey v. United States,

516 U.S. 137 (1995), he was convicted based upon conduct no

longer criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); that this claim was

foreclosed by Tenth Circuit precedent at the time of his

conviction; and that he cannot raise the claim in a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion because Bailey did not create a new rule of

constitutional law. Harwood filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions in

1996 and 1998, after Bailey was decided. He has not shown that

the claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time he filed his

prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, and he therefore has not shown

that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243

F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 04-10014 Document: 0051294059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2004