Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-31179/USCOURTS-ca5-09-31179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Baker
Appellant
Marina Medina
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-31179

Summary Calendar

JAMES E BAKER,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

MARINA MEDINA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:09-CV-1468

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James E. Baker, federal prisoner # 16137-064, is serving a 235-month

sentence for possession of ammunition by a felon. His conviction and sentence

were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Baker, 508 F.3d 1321, 1330

(10th Cir. 2007). Baker filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, arguing that the presentence report incorrectly recommended an

enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act since his civil liberties as

to his 1997 burglary conviction had been restored under Kansas law. The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 9, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-31179 Document: 00511136556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2010
No. 09-31179

2

district court determined that Baker could not proceed under § 2241 because his

claim did not satisfy the requirements of the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(e) and dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 2255 provides the main vehicle to raise a collateral challenge to a

federal sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Section

2255 relief is the remedy for “errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing.” Cox

v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast, § 2241 is used to raise a

challenge to “the manner in which a sentence is executed.” Tolliver, 211 F.3d at

877. A petition filed under § 2241 that raises errors “that occurr[ed] at trial or

sentencing is properly construed [as arising] under § 2255.” Id. at 877-78.

Baker is challenging the factual correctness of his sentence enhancement. As

such, Baker’s claim arose at the latest during his sentencing and must be

presented under § 2255. See Cox, 911 F.2d at 1113; see also Warren v. Miles, 230

F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000).

If a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy would be

“‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner’s] detention,’” he

may be permitted to bring a habeas corpus claim pursuant to § 2241 under the

“savings clause.” See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th

Cir. 2001) (quoting § 2255). “[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to 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.” Id. at

904. Baker has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on

the savings clause of § 2255(e). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-31179 Document: 00511136556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2010