Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40552/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles A. Daniels
Appellee
James Dinkins
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40552

Summary Calendar

JAMES DINKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-339

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

James Dinkins was convicted in the District of Maryland in 2009 of 

conspiracy to distribute narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 846; murder with intent to 

prevent attendance and testimony in an official proceeding and prevent 

communication of information about a federal offense to law enforcement 

under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(a)(1)(A) and (C); use of a firearm to further a drugtrafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii); and willfully causing 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

June 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-40552 Document: 00513574294 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
No. 15-40552

death of a person through use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking 

crime under § 924(j). He sought 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief in 2013, but was 

denied. He instituted this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his 

convictions and sentences.

In his current appeal, Dinkins asserts that two cases—Arthur Anderson 

LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), and Fowler v. United States, 563 

U.S. 668 (2011)—establish that the conduct for which he was convicted was 

not criminal. Those decisions predated his § 2255 motion and therefore may 

not be urged in a § 2241 challenge in connection with the § 2255(e) savings 

clause, which requires, among other things, that the petitioner’s claim was 

foreclosed by circuit law when it should have been raised in the petitioner’s 

trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th 

Cir. 2010). And to the extent that Dinkins may be understood to persist in a 

claim of factual, rather than legal, innocence, he fails to show that factual 

innocence creates an exception to the requirements for challenging a conviction 

and sentence in a § 2241 petition. See § 2255(e); Garland, 615 F.3d at 394.

The district court did not error by concluding that § 2241 relief was 

unavailable to Dinkins, see Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 

2001), and dismissing his § 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-40552 Document: 00513574294 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2016