Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50045/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50045

Summary Calendar

STANLEY ROBINSON,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Robinson, federal prisoner # 25071-044, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his petition, Robinson challenged the sentence 

imposed following his conviction in 1998 in the Eastern District of Missouri of 

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, of using a firearm during and 

in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm. Robinson contends that he should be permitted to proceed under the 

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We have construed Robinson’s motion as a challenge to the district 

court’s determination that his appeal has not been brought in good faith. See 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
No. 15-50045

2

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “is limited to 

whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and 

therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Section 2255 provides “the primary means of collaterally attacking a

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

2241, on the other hand, is used to challenge “the manner in which a sentence 

is executed.” Id. A petition filed under § 2241 that raises errors that occurred 

at or prior to sentencing should be construed as a § 2255 motion. Id. at 877-

78. However, under the savings clause, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody 

resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the 

petitioner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 

827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see also § 2255(e).

Robinson has the burden of showing that the § 2255 remedy is 

inadequate or ineffective. See Wesson v. United States Penitentiary Beaumont, 

TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002). He must show that his claims are “based 

on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that 

the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and were 

“foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should have been raised 

in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 

243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31.

Robinson wishes to challenge the legality of his sentence based on the 

reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. 

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 

(2013); and Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014). His invocation of 

Apprendi, Blakely, and Alleyne, is predicated on his contention that Persaud

 Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
No. 15-50045

3

announced a change in the law. Persaud was not a substantive decision and, 

therefore, does not support Robinson’s contention that the particular 

sentencing errors he complains of are amenable to § 2241 relief in this case.

The request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24; see also

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2016