Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40935/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40935-0/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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

F I L E D

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40935

Conference Calendar

 

DEREK GLEN ADKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

N. L. CONNOR, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-213

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derek Glen Adkins, federal prisoner # 24400-077, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Adkins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence,

Adkins had to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an

inadequate or ineffective remedy. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d

876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). “[T]he savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] 

 Case: 03-40935 Document: 0051135750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-40935

-2-

**347 U.S. 260 (1954).

§ 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively

applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the

petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and

(ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the

claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal,

or first [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United

States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Adkins argues that the indictment was defective and in

violation of the fair warning, Accardi v. Shaughnessy,

** and no

evidence doctrines because it failed to allege all elements of

the offenses charged. Thus, he pleaded guilty to non-existent

offenses and was actually innocent. 

Adkins’ claims are not based on a retroactively applicable

Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been

convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d

at 904. To the extent that his claims are based upon the Supreme

Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral

review and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the test for filing

a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings clause. See Wesson

v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th

Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Adkins fails to qualify for relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause provisions. The district

court’s dismissal of Adkins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is

 Case: 03-40935 Document: 0051135750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-40935

-3-

therefore AFFIRMED. Adkins’ motion for leave to file a reply

brief out of time is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

 Case: 03-40935 Document: 0051135750 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2004