Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41395/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce L. Oxner
Appellant
Keith Roy
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41395

Summary Calendar

BRUCE L. OXNER,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN KEITH ROY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CV-175

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bruce L. Oxner, federal prisoner #05874-003, who stands convicted of 

interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle and felony possession of a firearm, 

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

on Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), Oxner argues that the 

sentencing court erroneously determined that one of his prior convictions was 

a violent felony pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court 

 

* 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 28, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41395 Document: 00513210009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2015
No. 14-41395

2

determined that Oxner had not met the criteria for proceeding under the 

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to attack 

the legality of his conviction in a § 2241 petition if he can show that the 

remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate or ineffective to test the 

legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). 

A prisoner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy is inadequate or 

ineffective 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” that (ii) “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). As Descamps addresses sentencing issues and has no effect on whether 

the facts of Oxner’s case would support his convictions for the substantive 

offenses, it is not a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision indicating 

that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 

2282–84, 2293; In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Wesson v.

U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41395 Document: 00513210009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2015