IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31271

Summary Calendar

DARREN G. LEWIS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

CHRIS MCCONNELL,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:18-CV-1003

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darren G. Lewis, federal prisoner # 47027-177, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition in the Western District of Louisiana, where he is currently 

incarcerated. Relying on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and 

Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), Lewis argued that the definition of 

“crime of violence” in the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was 

unconstitutionally vague and that, therefore, his 84-month consecutive 

 

* 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

November 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
No. 18-31271

2

sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by brandishing a firearm during and 

in relation to a crime of violence could not stand. The district court dismissed 

the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Lewis contends that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 

petition. He asserts that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is 

inadequate because it cannot be used to bring a claim regarding the reach or 

meaning of a criminal statute; therefore, he argues, his claim is cognizable in 

a § 2241 petition because he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. 

Lewis devotes much of his brief to an attack on the constitutionality of 

§ 924(c)(3)(B). Our review is de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 

(5th Cir. 2000). 

A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for 

seeking post-conviction relief.” Id. Section 2255 is the primary mechanism for 

collaterally attacking a federal sentence, and a § 2255 motion must be filed 

with the sentencing court. Id. “A petition filed under § 2241 that attacks 

errors that occurred at trial or sentencing is properly construed as a § 2255 

motion.” Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). A prisoner 

challenging the validity of his conviction ordinarily must do so under § 2255 

and may proceed under § 2241 only if he shows that his § 2255 remedy was 

inadequate or ineffective. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 

2000). 

Although the Supreme Court has held that § 924(c)(3)(B) is 

unconstitutionally vague, see United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 

(2019), and we have determined that Davis applies retroactively on collateral 

review of an initial § 2255 motion, see United States v. Reece, 938 F.3d 630, 

 Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
No. 18-31271

3

634-35 (5th Cir. 2019),1 Lewis has failed to show that his claim meets the 

requirements of the savings clause. This is so because the predicate for his 

§ 924(c) conviction, a Hobbs Act robbery offense, is categorically a crime of 

violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v. 

Bowens, 907 F.3d 347, 353-54 & nn.10-11 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. 

Ct. 1299 (2019); United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th Cir. 2017).

In view of the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.

 

1 Lewis has brought Davis and Reece to our attention by filing letters pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j).

 Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2019