Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30474/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Johnson, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Pollock
Appellee
Cassius L. Medlock
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30474

Summary Calendar

CASSIUS L. MEDLOCK,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

CALVIN JOHNSON, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 

POLLOCK,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:18-CV-1200

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Cassius L. Medlock, federal prisoner # 17339-035, 

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. Medlock filed that petition to challenge the 188-month sentence 

imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 28 

grams or more of cocaine base. He contends that he should not have received 

* 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

April 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30474 Document: 00515391248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2020
No. 19-30474

2

a career offender enhancement at sentencing because his prior Texas drug 

conviction no longer qualifies as a predicate offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 in 

light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). 

We review the dismissal of Medlock’s petition de novo. See Pack v. 

Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A prisoner may use § 2241 to 

challenge his conviction only if the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is 

inadequate or ineffective to contest the legality of his detention. § 2255(e). A 

§ 2241 petition is not a substitute for a § 2255 motion, and Medlock must 

establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion by satisfying

that provision’s savings clause. See § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 

827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 

(5th Cir. 2001). Under that clause, Medlock must show that his petition sets 

forth a claim based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which

supports that he might have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that 

the claim was foreclosed when it should have been asserted in his trial, direct 

appeal, or original § 2255 motion. Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. 

Medlock disputes his enhanced sentence, not the underlying conviction. 

This court has repeatedly held that challenges to the validity of a sentencing 

enhancement do not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255(e). See In re Bradford, 

660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 

(5th Cir. 2005); Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Medlock’s reliance on out-of-circuit authority to assert that the savings clause 

should be extended to encompass sentencing errors is unavailing, as “one panel 

of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening 

change in the law, such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court,

or our en banc court.” United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 

2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Case: 19-30474 Document: 00515391248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2020
No. 19-30474

3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30474 Document: 00515391248 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2020