Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30168/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dorian J. Francis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30168

Summary Calendar

DORIAN J. FRANCIS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CV-2308

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dorian J. Francis, federal prisoner # 27103-034, is serving a 177-month 

sentence for bank robbery and using, carrying, and discharging a firearm 

during a crime of violence. Francis filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing 

that he was entitled to resentencing because the indictment failed to notify 

him of the Government’s intent to seek an enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). He further argued that his sentence violated the Double 

 

* 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 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30168 Document: 00513188014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
No. 15-30168

2

Jeopardy Clause and that he was actually innocent. The district court denied 

Francis’s § 2241 petition because he failed to satisfy the requirements of the 

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

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 hence the appropriate remedy for “error[s] 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 properly 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 occur[red] at trial or sentencing is properly construed under 

§ 2255.” Id. at 877-78. Francis is challenging alleged errors that happened at 

trial and sentencing. As such, Francis’s claims must be raised in a § 2255 

motion. See Cox, 911 F.2d at 1113.

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). To make this showing, Francis must make a claim 

(i) “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.

Francis has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based 

on the savings clause of § 2255(e). See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904; Wesson 

 Case: 15-30168 Document: 00513188014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
No. 15-30168

3

v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30168 Document: 00513188014 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2015