Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50572/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50572-0/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. 14-50572

Summary Calendar

RON KEITH MORRISON,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RACHEL CHAPA, Warden, FCI La Tuna,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-162

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ron Keith Morrison, federal prisoner # 21229-056, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his 

sentences for convictions on two counts of possession of ammunition by a 

convicted felon and one count of possession of cocaine base with intent to 

distribute. Specifically, in his petition, Morrison, relying on United States v. 

Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), challenged his sentencing by the

* 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

March 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50572 Document: 00512973247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
No. 14-50572

Eastern District of North Carolina under the career offender guideline. In this 

court, Morrison repeats his claim that he was erroneously sentenced under the 

career offender guideline, arguing that the failure to correct the error will 

result in a miscarriage of justice and that he is entitled to relief under the 

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the error was not discovered until 

after his conviction became final and the time for filing a timely § 2255 motion 

had passed.

We review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 

F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Morrison attacks the legality of his 

sentence, he must meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e) to 

raise his claims in a § 2241 petition. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 

(5th Cir. 2000). To satisfy the criteria of § 2255’s savings clause, a prisoner

must show that his claim is (i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme 

Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted 

of a nonexistent offense” and that his claim was (ii) “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). Morrison has not made the required showing.

Additionally, Morrison argues for the first time on appeal that the

purported error in his presentence report, concerning the sentencing court’s 

application of the career offender guideline, is a clerical error that can be 

corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We decline to 

consider this argument because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See 

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50572 Document: 00512973247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2015