Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20715/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20715-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cassie Ball
Appellant
Marne Boyle
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20715

Summary Calendar

CASSIE BALL,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

MARNE BOYLE, Warden, Federal Prison Camp Bryan,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-3045

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cassie Ball pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and 

possess, with the intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846, and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking 

offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). She is serving a 180-month sentence. 

Ball did not pursue a direct appeal. Her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied, 

as was her attempt to pursue a successive § 2255 motion. 

 

* 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

September 13, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20715 Document: 00513675158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2016
No. 15-20715

2

Proceeding pro se, Ball contests the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition, urging she is entitled to relief because she is actually innocent of the 

firearms offense, and her continued incarceration will result in a miscarriage 

of justice. The dismissal of a § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo. See Pack v. 

Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Through that petition, a federal prisoner may attack the validity of his

conviction if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause in § 2255. 

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). The 

prisoner must establish the remedy provided under § 2255 would be 

“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(e); Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901. To make that showing, a prisoner 

must make a claim (1) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court 

decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a 

nonexistent offense” that (2) “was 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, 243 F.3d at 904. 

Ball fails to make the required showing. To the extent she relies on 

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), she has not demonstrated

it applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Tyler v. Cain, 533 

U.S. 656, 663 (2001) (“[A] new rule is not ‘made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review’ unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive”).

Moreover, assuming, arguendo, Rosemond is retroactively applicable, Ball has 

not shown it establishes she may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. 

Ball was charged and convicted under § 924(c); because she was neither 

charged nor convicted under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, 

Rosemond does not apply. See 134 S. Ct. at 1243 (concerning cases where the 

Government charges a defendant with aiding or abetting, under 18 U.S.C. § 2, 

 Case: 15-20715 Document: 00513675158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2016
No. 15-20715

3

conduct that violates § 924(c)). Furthermore, Ball acknowledged in her written 

plea agreement and factual basis that she “knowingly possessed” the loaded 

pistol underlying the § 924 violation. 

Ball’s “actual innocence” argument is unavailing. She presents no 

authority for an “actual innocence” gateway to challenge a conviction and 

sentence in a § 2241 petition if the petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements 

of § 2255’s savings clause. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 

(2013); Foster v. Quarterman, 466 F.3d 359, 367−68 (5th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20715 Document: 00513675158 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2016