Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos.: 4:97cr9/RH/GRJ

4:15cv487/RH/GRJ

ANTHONY WILLIAMS1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court upon a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 107.) The petition stems from Petitioner’s 1997 conviction

in this court for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Petitioner had at least three

prior felony convictions for crimes of violence (five convictions for burglary), and as

such he was subject to enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act

(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Therefore, Petitioner faced a statutory mandatoryminimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court sentenced him to a term of 288 months

imprisonment, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. (ECF Nos. 36, 61.)

In 2012, this court recommended, as part of its recommendation on Petitioner’s 1

second § 2255 motion, that Petitioner’s “Emergency Motion to Correct Records and

Clerical Errors” (ECF No. 101) be granted only to the extent that the case style in this case

should be amended to reflect the name “Anthony Williams” rather than “Anthony Lee

Williams.” (ECF No. 102). This portion of the recommendation was not specifically

addressed by the district court in its order adopting the recommendation with respect to

Petitioner’s second § 2255 motion. (ECF No. 104). The undersigned notes, however, that

the district court amended the style of the case in its order by omitting the middle name

“Lee,” and as such has followed suit in the caption of this report, despite the fact that no

change has been made to the docket.
Page 2 of 5

Petitioner timely sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2000, arguing that

counsel operated under a conflict of interest, that counsel failed to challenge the

sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the interstate nexus of the firearm he was

charged with possessing, that counsel should have objected to the admission of his

prior pleas of nolo contendere and that appellate counsel was constitutionally

ineffective for failing to raise the aforementioned grounds on appeal. (See ECF No.

76.) The court denied his motion on the merits, and in 2001 both the district and

appellate courts denied a certificate of appealability. (ECF Nos. 78, 80, 86.) 

In 2007, Petitioner filed a motion in this court titled “Motion for Relief from

Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) and (6),” which the court construed as a

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and summarily dismissed the motion as

successive. (ECF Nos. 92, 94, 96.)

In 2012 Petitioner filed a motion titled “Non Successive Motion to Vacate under

28 U.S.C. § 2255” in which he asserted that he was improperly treated as an armed

career criminal under Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). (ECF No. 98.)

This motion was also summarily dismissed as successive. (ECF No. 102, 104.) 

Most recently, in 2015, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, contending that he was sentenced

in excess of the applicable statutory maximum in light of Begay v. United States, 553

U.S. 137 (2008) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). He also filed a

motion for appointment of counsel, and subsequently a motion to amend his § 2241

petition, which he again specifically identified as having been filed “pursuant to saving

Case Nos.: 4:97cr9/RH/GRJ; 4:15cv487/RH/GRJ
Page 3 of 5

clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).” (See ECF Nos. 108, 109.) Upon review, the Middle

District of Pennsylvania determined that the petition was, in substance, a motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the case should be transferred to this court, the

district of conviction. (M.D. Pa. Case 3:15cv1538, ECF No. 7.) The District Court in the 2

Middle District of Pennsylvania also transferred the motions to appoint counsel and to

amend, leaving resolution of those motions “to the discretion of the transferee court.” 

(M.D. Pa. Case 3:15cv1538, ECF No. 8.). It did not specifically determine whether

Petitioner could show that he was entitled to relief under § 2241 by way of the § 2255

savings clause. 

Because Petitioner intended to pursue his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 under

the savings clause of § 2255 and not under § 2255 itself, he properly filed his § 2241

petition in the district of his confinement. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443

(2004). As the Eleventh Circuit has stated in another similar case, if a petitioner has 

consistently identified his petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it should not be

recharacterized as a § 2255 motion. See Garcia v. Warden, 470 F. App’x 735 (11th

Cir. 2012) (citing Wyatt v. United States, 574 F.3d 455, 460 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining

that courts “must respect a litigant’s decision to invoke a certain statute”)); see also

Zelaya v. Secretary, 798 F.3d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court was “not

obliged to recast [petitioner’s] § 2241 petition over his express wishes”). The Garcia

court reversed this court’s merits ruling on a § 2241 that had been transferred by the

The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which pertains to venue, rather than 28 U.S.C. 2

§ 1631, which governs transfer to cure want of jurisdiction, in its order. (M.D. Pa. Case

3:15cv1538, ECF No. 7 at 7).

Case Nos.: 4:97cr9/RH/GRJ; 4:15cv487/RH/GRJ
Page 4 of 5

Southern District of Florida, finding that this court did not have jurisdiction to render

such a ruling. It remanded the case with directions to re-transfer the case back to the

Southern District, which could then determine whether the savings clause would apply. 

Garcia, 470 F. App’x at 736. Therefore, as in Garcia, the instant petition should not

have been either recharacterized or transferred to this court, because this court does

not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the savings clause issue. See Garcia, 470 F.

App’x at 736. 

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (ECF No. 107) should be

administratively closed and Petitioner’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be

TRANSFERRED back to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

2. Ruling should be deferred on Petitioner’s remaining pending motions (ECF

Nos. 108, 109), as these motions are best addressed by the reviewing court.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 15th day of October, 2015.

 s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case Nos. 4:97cr9/RH/GRJ; 4:15cv487/RH/GRJ
Page 5 of 5

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other

parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or

recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and

recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district

court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th

Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case Nos. 4:97cr9/RH/GRJ; 4:15cv487/RH/GRJ