FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 28, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 02 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -0 00 59 -LGW -J EG CHARLES DANIEL MAYE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us WARDEN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

In20 06 , a jury fo un d P et it io ne r gu il ty of co ns pi rin g, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 71 , to acce ss a co m pu te r wit ho utau th or iz at io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 03 0; acce ss in g aco m

pu te r wit ho utau th or iz at io n i n v io la ti on of § 10 30 ; an d m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1, an d t he di stric t co urt se nt en cedhi m

to pri so n fo r a t ot al of 9 7 m on th s. Pet it io ne r ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es , bu t wi th dr ew th e ap pe al . On th ree o ccas io ns th erea fte r he att em pt ed , bu t fa il ed , to ga in rel ie f fro m hi s co nv ic ti on s und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . After t ha t, h e at te m pt edto ga in su chrel ie f vi a a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us fil edpurs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1. In hi s p et it io n, h e cl ai m edth at he is in no cen t o f th e cri m es of wh ic h h e was co nv ic te d— be cau se of t hi s co urt’s de ci si on s i n Uni te d Sta tes v. S al um , 25 7 F . App ’x 22 5 (1 1 Cir . 20 07 ), an d Uni te d th St at es v. Rod

ri gu ez , 62 8 F ,3d12 58 (11 Cir . 20 10 )—a ndth athe was e nt it le d t o th us e § 22 55 's “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” to pro ceedun de r § 2 24 1. The di stric t co urt re ferr edth e p et it io n t o am ag is tra te jud ge fora rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on . The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d en y th e p et it io n o n t he gro un d t ha t Pe ti ti on er h adno t d em on st rat edeli gi bi li ty for in vo ki ng th e sa vi ng s cl au se ; s pe ci fic al ly, he ha d n otcit eda retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on supp orti ng hi s cl ai m . Reco rd , Vol . 1, Tab 9 at 23. Pe ti ti on er o bjec te d t o t he m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on on th e g ro un d t ha t o ur de ci si on in W

of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F .3d12 36 (11 Cir . 19 99 ), au th or iz edhi s th in vo cat io n o f th e sa vi ng s cl au se . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d h is ob jecti on an d, ad op ti ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on , den ie d re li ef. Rec or d, Vo l. 2 , Tab 14 at 2 . Peti ti on er m ov edth e co urt t o re co ns id er, an d t he co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n. Id . Tab 1 9 a t 2 . Proc eed in g pr o s e , Pet it io ne r no w app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng . Ord in ari ly, a fed eral pri so ne r m us t b rin g any col la te ral att ackon hi s co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C § 22 55 . Sa wye r v. Ho lder , 32 6 F .3d13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Howev er, u nd er l im it edcir cu m st an ces setforth in § 2 25 5( e)’s s av in gs claus e, a fed eral pri so ne r m ay in st eadfil e a h ab eas pe ti ti on un de r § 2 24 1. Se e28 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 (a), 2 25 5( e). Thi s s av in gs claus e p ro vi de s th atrel ie f un de r § 2 24 1 i s o nl y av ai labl e if

th e p ris on er af

firm at iv el y

sh ows th ata § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g i s “ in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t the leg al it y of h is de te nt io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( e); McGh ee v. Ha nb erry , 60 4 F .2d9, 1 0 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ). Whe re, as he re, a p ris on er h as pre vi ou sl y fil edanun su cces sf

ul § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on , he g en eral ly m ay no t fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve m ot io n u nl es s an d u nt il we gr an t h im au th or iz at io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h ); Uni te d 3St at es v. Diaz- Clark, 29 2 F .3d13 10 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Thi s re st ric ti on ,

st an di ng alo ne , can no t re nd er § 22 55 ’s rem edy in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve un de r th e sa vi ng s cl au se in§ 2 25 5( e). Gilbe rt v. Uni te d Sta tes , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 08 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , (U.S. Jan . 9, 2 01 2) (No. 1 1- 60 53 ). Rat he r, a p ris on er m eet s t hi s b ur de n o nl y wher e h e sh ows th at : (1 ) hi s cu rren t cl ai m

is ba se d o n aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on ; (2 ) th e h ol di ng of t ha t d eci si on est ab li sh edth atth e p ris on er was co nv ic te d o f a no ne xi st en t o ffen se ; an d (3 ) ci rcu itlaw s qu arel y for ecl os edsu cha cl ai m

at the ti m e itot he rwis e sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d a t the pri so ne r’s tri al , app eal , or fi rs t § 2 25 5 m ot io n. W

of fo rd , 17 7 F .3dat 1 24 4; bu t s ee Gi lb er t , 64 0 F .3dat 1 31 9 (cl ari fy in g t ha t the W

of fo rd te stwas d ic ta ). A pri so ne r m us t s at is fy

all th ree pr on gs of t hi s t es t b efo re we wi ll co ns id er the m eri ts of h is cla im . W of fo rd , 17 7 F.3 d a t 1 24 4 n .3. Here, Pe ti ti on er fa il edto est ab li sh th atth e sa vi ng s cl au se ap pl ie s, i n tha t h e di d n otid en ti fy

a rel ev an t re tro act iv el y

Supr em e Co urt d eci si on or s ho w th atth is ci rcu it ’s law s qu arel y

for ecl os edhi s cl ai m . Furt he rm or e, he can no t u se § 2 25 5( e)’s s av in gs claus e m erel y to av oi d t he su cces si ve m ot io n b anof § 2 25 5( h) . The di stric t co urt’s d eci si on is , acco rd in gl y , 4AFFIR MED.

5