[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17466

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00505-WTH-PRL

JEFFREY EUGENE LEE, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 9, 2018)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17466 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Jeffrey Lee, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 requesting the district court to vacate his state court guilty plea. The 

district court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. This is Lee’s appeal.

I.

A jury convicted Lee of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack 

cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846. Because he had two prior felony drug convictions, the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) mandated that the district court sentence Lee to life 

imprisonment without eligibility for parole. Id. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

On direct appeal, Lee contended that one of the predicate convictions for his 

federal sentence was invalid. That conviction was the result of a state law drug

offense to which Lee pleaded guilty. Lee did not appear for sentencing and the 

state court did not enter judgment of conviction. Lee contended that the state 

court’s failure to enter judgment disqualified his guilty plea as a conviction under 

the CSA. We affirmed his federal conviction without discussion and affirmed his 

federal sentence on the basis that “a plea of guilty is a conviction within the 

meaning of the CSA.” United States v. Lee, No. 92-2760, at 4 (11th Cir. June 21, 

1994).

In his § 2241 petition, Lee claimed that his state court guilty plea is invalid 

and asked the district court to vacate that plea. But Lee now contends that he 

Case: 16-17466 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

meant to ask the district court to order the state court to impose the sentence for his 

drug conviction, because only after that is done can he appeal it. He concedes that 

he has abandoned any argument that the state court guilty plea is invalid. See

Appellant’s Reply Br. at 1.

II.

Lee contends that the district court had jurisdiction to order the state court to 

impose a sentence. We review de novo the dismissal of his petition, Howard v. 

Warden, 776 F.3d 772, 775 (11th Cir. 2015), and we construe liberally filings by 

pro se litigants, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Lee argues that the state court’s failure to impose his sentence prevents him 

from appealing and as a result violates due process. In support of that argument, 

he cites Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016), which he says 

held that “the failure of a state court to promptly impose sentence violates the Due 

Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. He also cites 

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S. Ct. 1123 

(1973), which he says authorized the district court “to issue an order directing the 

Florida state court to impose [his] sentence immediately.” Appellant’s Br. at 3.1

 1 Neither Braden nor Betterman stand for those propositions. The Betterman Court noted 

that the petitioner “did not preserve a due process challenge” and as a result the Court 

“confine[d] [its] opinion to his Sixth Amendment challenge.” 136 S. Ct. at 1612. And the 

Braden decision simply held that a defendant who was detained based on a pending indictment 

may file a § 2241 petition to assert his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. 410 U.S. at 489, 

93 S. Ct. at 1126–27.

Case: 16-17466 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

The district court properly denied Lee’s § 2241 petition because he

challenges action, or inaction, of the state court, not of the federal court whose 

judgment put him in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (“The writ of habeas 

corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . he is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”) (emphasis added). The due 

process violation that Lee alleges relates only to the state court’s failure to sentence 

him. Section 2241 does not authorize the district court to order the state court to 

impose Lee’s sentence, and absent statutory authority to review the state court’s 

inaction, “a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to 

direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” 

Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cty. Sup. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17466 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 Page: 4 of 4