Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03091/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl L. Lester
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CARL L. LESTER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 16-3091 

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-03109-KHV) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Carl Lester appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. We affirm. 

On March 16, 2010, Lester was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. He 

filed two § 2255 motions, both of which were denied. He then filed a § 2241 petition 

in the district court advancing claims which the district court found had been raised 

in his previous § 2255 motions. The court ordered Lester to show cause why the 

§ 2241 petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. After considering 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

August 11, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3091 Document: 01019670600 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Lester’s response, the district court dismissed the petition for lack of statutory 

jurisdiction. Lester timely appealed. 

Generally, a prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his sentence 

under § 2241 unless a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the 

legality of [the petitioner’s] detention.” Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584 (10th 

Cir. 2011) (quoting § 2255(e)). It is the prisoner’s burden to show the inadequacy of 

§ 2255. Prost, 636 F.3d at 584. “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not 

establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Williams 

v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963). Rather, if “a petitioner’s 

argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been tested in an initial 

§ 2255 motion . . . then the petitioner may not resort to . . . § 2241.” Prost, 636 F.3d 

at 584. 

Even construing Lester’s pro se filings liberally, see Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 

1198, 1201 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2010), he fails to argue that his claims could not have been 

raised under § 2255.1

 Instead, he argues ineffective assistance of counsel during 

sentencing and challenges the district court’s adoption of the pre-sentence report. 

These issues can and should be addressed in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. 

Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Normally, we require criminal 

defendants alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to obtain a ruling by a district 

 1

 Lester does argue dismissal was improper under Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 

1911 (2013). But Trevino held only that a federal court could excuse a petitioner’s 

default under state law of an ineffective assistance claim for purposes of a federal 

habeas corpus petition. Id. at 1921. 

Appellate Case: 16-3091 Document: 01019670600 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 2 
3 

court on their argument by way of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”); 

Freeman v. Davis, 414 F. App’x 163, 165, 166 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) 

(§ 2255 is “the proper avenue” for a federal prisoner’s post-conviction allegation of 

factual error in the pre-sentence report). Lester’s challenge cannot be heard under 

§ 2241. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Because Lester has failed 

to show the “existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in 

support of the issues raised,” Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 

2012), his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-3091 Document: 01019670600 Date Filed: 08/11/2016 Page: 3