FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11945 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 78 -C V -W S D -1 F R A N K L . S H A R P E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 12, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r a nk S ha rpe , a f

e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , f i l e d a pe t i t i on f

orSharpe also filed a writ of mandamus, re questingthat he not be tra nsfer red to a nother 1 fac ili ty so that hec ould p ro se c ute his pe tition . Th e dis tric t c ourt denie d mand amus re lie f a s mo ot. Sharpe doe s not challeng e this decision, and, therefore, he has abandone d it. Rowe v. Schreiber , 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998). Sha rp efi le d his pe tition

a ft e r t hee ff e c tiv edateof

theAntit e rrorism

and Ef fe c tiv eDe ath 2 Penalty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 ( “ A E D PA ” ) , Pu b . L . N o . 1 0 4 - 3 2 , 1 1 0 St at. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , an d , th e r e f o r e , the provision s o f that ac t govern this appeal. Sharpe is not require d to obtain a COA to appe al the dismiss al of a

§ 2241 petition. Sawyer, 326 F .3d at 1364 n.3. 2 ha be a s r e l i e f

pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2241, a l l e gi ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l a nd i m pr ope rs e nt e nc i ng c a l c ul a t i ons i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s 1998 conv i ct i on s f

or drug offe nses . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed re l i ef , fi nd i ng that 1 S harpe’ s c l ai m s w er e proper und er28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, S harpe coul d n otshow that § 2255 w a s a n i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve r e m e dy t o c ha l l e nge hi s c onvi c t i ons , a nd S harpe had previ ou sl y f i l ed a § 22 55 m ot i on and d i d n othave perm i ss i on t o fi l e a seco n d o r su ccessi v e m o t i o n . S h arp e n o w ap p eal s. T he avai l abi l i ty of habeas re l i ef un der § 22 41 pres ent s aqu es t i on of l aw that w e r evi ew de no vo . S aw ye r v. H ol der, 32 6 F . 3d 13 63 , 13 64 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ); 2 C o o k v . W ile y , 2 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . H e r e , th e c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d r e lie f . S h a rp e c h a lle n g e s th e le g a lity o f h is conv i ct i on , w hi ch i s properl y broug hti n a § 2 25 5 m ot i on t o v ac at e. U ni t ed S t at es v. J or da n, 915 F . 2d 622, 629 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . T he “ s a vi ngs c l a us e ” i n § 2255, h o w e v e r , p e r m its a p r is o n e rto f ile a § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n if

a n o th e r w is e a v a ila b le r e m e d y u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is3

det ent i on . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. In W offord v. S cot t , 17 7 F . 3d 12 36 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ), thi s c our te s t a bl i s he d a thr e e - pr ong t e s tt o de t e r m i ne the a ppl i c a bi l i ty of the s a v in g s c la u s e to p e r m it a f e d e r a l p r is o n e rto f

ile a § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n a tta c k in g h is c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e . T he pe t i t i one rm us ts how ( 1) tha thi s c l a i m i s ba s e d on a re troac t i vel y app l i cabl e U . S . S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on ; (2) the ho l di ng of that de c i s i on e s t a bl i s he s tha tthe pe t i t i one rw a s c onvi c t e d of a non- e xi s t e ntof

f e ns e ; a nd ( 3) c i r c ui tl a w s qua r e l y f or e c l os e d s uc h a c l a i m a tthe t i m e i tothe r w i s e s houl d ha ve be e n r a i s e d a tthe pe t i t i one r ’ s tr i a l , a ppe a l , orf i r s t§ 2255 m ot i on. W of f or d, 177 F . 3d a t1244; s e e a l s o S a w y e r , 326 F . 3d a t1365. W h en a p ri so n er p rev i o u sl y h as fi l ed a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n t o v acat e, h e m u st a ppl y f ora nd r e c e i ve pe r m i s s i on f r om the c i r c ui tc our tpr i ort o f i l i ng a s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. 28 U . S . C . §§ 2255, 2244( b) ( 3) ; I n r e B l a c ks hi r e , 98 F . 3d 1293, 1293 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . A pe t i t i one rw ho ha s f i l e d a nd be e n de ni e d a pr e vi ous § 2255 m ot i on m a y notc i r c um ve ntthe s uc c e s s i ve - pe t i t i on rul e s i m pl y by f i l i ng a n o th e rp e titio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . W o f f o r d , 1 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . H e r e , S ha rpe c a nnots how tha t§ 2255 w a s i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve , a s he fa i l ed t o i dent i fy any r etroac t i vel y app l i cabl e S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on , thathe w as c o n v ic te d o f

a n o n - e x is te n t o f

f e n s e , o rth a t h e c o u ld n o t h a v e b r o u g h t h is c la imTo th e ex t ent that Sharpechalleng es his sentenc ing guidelines calculations on Booker 3 grounds, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this c ourt has held that Booker is not retroactively applicableto case s on c oll ateral re view. Va

re la v. Unite d St ate s, 40 0 F .3 d 8 64 (1 1th Cir . 200 5) . No r h a s th is c ourt he ld that Booker would p ermit a sec ond or succ essive § 2255 motion. In re Anderson, 396 F .3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2005). 4 e a r l i e r . S e e W of

f or d, 177 F . 3d a t1244. M or e ove r , S ha rpe f i l e d a pr e vi ous 3 § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d , a n d h e c a n n o t u s e § 2 2 4 1 a s a m e a n s to c ir c u m v e n t th e lim its o n s u c c e s s iv e a p p lic a tio n s o rto s h o w th a t § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o rin e f

f e c tiv e . F i na l l y , t o the e xt e ntS ha rpe a r gue s tha the w a s a c tua l l y i nnoc e ntof the offe nses , hi s c l ai m s a m ou ntt o l egal i nsuffi ci ency ra ther than factual i nn ocence, and t here fore , do no tes t abl i sh thathe w as ac tual l y i nn ocent . T he ac tual i nn ocence exce pt i on i s “ exce edi ng l y narrow i n scope” and requi re s proof of fac tual i nnoc e nc e , notj us tl e ga l i ns uf f i c i e nc y . J ohns on v. A l a ba m a , 256 F . 3d 1156, 1171 ( 11th C i r . 2001) , c e r t . de ni e d, 535 U . S . 926 ( 2002) ; S a w y e rv. H ol de r , 326 F . 3d 13 63 , 13 67 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.