Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11488/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald King
Appellant
Eric D. Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11488

Summary Calendar

RONALD KING,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-868

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald King, federal prisoner # 35076-177, appeals the dismissal of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions for conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. 

King argues that: (1) the district court violated his due process rights by failing 

to expand the record to include an affidavit from Shelby King; (2) the district 

court improperly dismissed his § 2241 petition without fully examining 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

January 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-11488 Document: 00515263776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
No. 18-11488

2

merits of his allegations; and (3) he is actually innocent of his counts of 

conviction. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition 

on the pleadings for lack of jurisdiction. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th 

Cir. 2000).

A prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction ordinarily must do 

so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and may proceed under § 2241 only if he shows that 

his § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective. Id. at 451-52. To do so, he 

must raise 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 

§ 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 

2001).

King has not satisfied the Reyes-Requena standard because he is not 

relying on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that 

he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. His reliance on, and 

attempt to include in the record, a new affidavit is improper because it is 

offered for the first time before this court. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(a); Theriot v. 

Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). King has not shown 

that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition without 

conducting an evidentiary hearing or examining the merits of his underlying 

claims. Moreover, his actual innocence argument under McQuiggin v. Perkins, 

569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013), is unavailing in this context.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11488 Document: 00515263776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2020