Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10449/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David E. Malone
Appellant
Eric Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10449

Summary Calendar

DAVID E. MALONE,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-531

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David E. Malone, federal prisoner # 21817-424, is serving a total of 276 

months of imprisonment imposed following his conviction by a jury of four 

drug-related offenses. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which we review de novo. See Pack v. 

Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). To pursue relief under § 2241, 

Malone was required to satisfy the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) savings clause by 

* 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 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10449 Document: 00515292956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2020
No. 19-10449

2

establishing that his claim (1) “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme 

Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted 

of a nonexistent offense,” and (2) “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).

The district court did not err in determining that Malone failed to meet 

the requirements of the § 2255(e) savings clause. We are not persuaded by 

Malone’s unsupported arguments that he (1) was not required to make that 

showing or (2) was entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on a different 

showing of factual innocence that does not rely on a retroactively applicable 

Supreme Court case which establishes that he may have been convicted of a 

nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. To the extent that 

Malone now attempts to rely on McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 

(2015), he did not raise that argument in the district court and we decline to 

consider it for the first time on appeal. See Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 

n.1 (5th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10449 Document: 00515292956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2020