Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50636/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50636-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rachel Chapa
Appellee
Maurice Goree
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50636

Summary Calendar

MAURICE GOREE,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

RACHEL CHAPA, Warden, FCI La Tuna,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-107

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maurice Goree, federal prisoner # 36474-044, pleaded guilty in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to two counts 

of aiding-and-abetting the armed robbery of a financial institution, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a) and (d), and one count of aiding-and-abetting the 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c). He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where he is 

* 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 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50636 Document: 00512890204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 14-50636

incarcerated. The district court construed the petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. Proceeding pro se, Goree 

challenges the dismissal. 

He contends Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), requires 

reversing his conviction and sentence for aiding-and-abetting the possession of 

a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Because Goree challenges the 

validity of his conviction, his petition was properly construed as a § 2255 

motion. E.g., Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). He has 

not shown his claims could be brought in a § 2241 petition under the savings 

clause of § 2255(e) because, even if Rosemond applies retroactively, he has not 

established his claim was foreclosed previously. The law in the Eighth Circuit, 

the circuit in which he was convicted, was consistent with Rosemond and, in 

fact, was cited in Rosemond. 134 S. Ct. at 1249 (citing United States v. Akiti, 

701 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir. 2012)). 

Furthermore, Goree has not shown he was convicted of a nonexistent 

offense, because the record supports he had the foreknowledge required under 

Rosemond to be guilty of aiding and abetting his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense. 

See, e.g., Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, he 

has not demonstrated the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective 

to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler, 

253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed because the district 

court lacked jurisdiction over the § 2255 motion, which could be filed, if at all, 

in the district where Goree was sentenced. E.g., Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 

451 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50636 Document: 00512890204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015