Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30055/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30055-0/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. 16-30055

Summary Calendar

ROBERT NELSON HOWELL,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

T.G. WERLICH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Pollock,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:15-CV-2146

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Nelson Howell, federal prisoner # 09232-026, appeals the 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the 

petition, he challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for controlled 

substance offenses, as well as his conviction for a controlled substance offense 

in the District of Minnesota. 

 

* 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

October 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30055 Document: 00513736606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-30055

2

Section 2241 is the procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in 

which a sentence is being executed, whereas a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the 

vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Padilla v. 

United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Howell’s challenge 

is to the constitutionality of his Illinois and Minnesota convictions, his claims 

fall under the purview of § 2255 rather than § 2241. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 

426. A § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. § 2255(a); Solsona 

v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Although Howell could seek relief in a § 2241 petition filed in the 

Western District of Louisiana under § 2255’s “savings clause” if he 

demonstrated that no adequate or effective relief was available under § 2255 

and relief is available under § 2241, see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 

F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001), his arguments that his Minnesota conviction 

was obtained in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that 

his Illinois conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause do not make the 

required showing. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Howell’s 

motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is DENIED.

 Case: 16-30055 Document: 00513736606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016