Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20398/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20398-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeremiah DeWayne Arnold
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20398

Summary Calendar

JEREMIAH DEWAYNE ARNOLD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-1391

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Jeremiah Dewayne Arnold, federal prisoner 

# 45645-019, filed the instant suit to challenge his conviction for use of a 

firearm during a crime of violence and his 25-year sentence. The district court 

determined that the suit was best classed as an unauthorized successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it. In this appeal, Arnold argues that his 

claims are properly brought under § 2241 because they concern fundamental 

* 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

March 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20398 Document: 00512978252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-20398

errors in the criminal process and because the claims have not previously been 

considered on the merits. He also argues that the district court erred by not 

considering Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). 

When considering the denial of a § 2241 petition, we review the district 

court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. 

Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). Our analysis of 

Arnold’s arguments and pertinent authority shows no error in connection with 

the district court’s judgment.

 Because Arnold’s arguments relate to events that occurred prior to or at 

sentencing, his suit arises under § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 

424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). He has already filed the one § 2255 motion to which 

he is entitled, and he has not received authorization to file another. 

Consequently, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction 

over the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); United States v. Key, 

205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).

 Insofar as Arnold contends that he should be permitted to file a § 2241 

petition under the savings clause of § 2255 because Alleyne meets the 

parameters of the savings clause, he is mistaken. See Reyes-Requena v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). This court has held that Alleyne does 

not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. United States v. Olvera, 

775 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2015). Moreover, Arnold’s reliance on Alleyne is 

misplaced. Alleyne extended the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 

490 (2000), to hold that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases 

the statutory minimum sentence must be alleged in an indictment and proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 & n.1. Here, Arnold’s 

sentence was enhanced based on a prior conviction, not because of some other 

fact. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i). Further, since the decision in Alleyne

implicates the validity of a sentence, Alleyne does not establish that Arnold

2

Case: 14-20398 Document: 00512978252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-20398

was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary 

Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-20398 Document: 00512978252 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2015