FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 24, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 04- 15883 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 03 -001 96 -C V -2 F E I L B E R T O R O B E R T O F L O R E S ,

P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s R O B E R T M C F A D D E N , W a r d e n , 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t obe r24, 2005)
B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F ei l bert o R ob ert o F l ores , a pro se fe dera l pri soner, appeal s the di stri ct2

c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of

hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus , f

i l ed p u rsua ntt o 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 24 1, i n w hi ch he argued that h e w as se nt ence d b as ed on char ges that
w e r e d i s m i s s e d , h is s e n te n c e w a s e n h a n c e d b a s e d o n an o n e x is te n t c h a r g e , a n d h is de f e ns e at t o rne y a nd the pr os e c ut ori m pr ope r l y c ol l ude d dur i ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng. T he d istrict c o urtfoun d that28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 25 5’ s s avi ng s c l ause di d n otappl y s uch tha the c oul d r a i s e hi s c l a i m s i n § 2241 pe t i t i o n . O n appe a l , F l or e s a r gue s tha the i s “ ac tual l y i nn ocent ” bas ed on the cl ai m s des cr i bed abo ve. 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 o f l aw that
w e r evi ew de no vo . C oo k v
. W i l ey , 20 8 F
. 3d 13 1 4, 13 17 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). T yp i cal l y, co l l at eral att ack s o n th e v al i d i ty o f a fed eral co n v i ct i o n o r sen t en ce m u st be brou gh tun der § 22 55
. S aw ye r v. H ol der, 32 6 F
. 3d 13 63 , 13 65 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). H ow ever , un der l i m i t ed circ u m st ance s, a provi si on of § 2 25 5 p erm i t s afe dera l p r i s o n e rt o f

i l e ah ab e a s pe t i t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 2 4 1
. Se e 2 8 U
. S. C. § § 2 2 4 1 ( a ) , 2 2 5 5 . T h a t p r o v is io n , k n o w n a s th e “s a v in g s c la u s e ,” p r o v id e s th a t [ a ] n appl i c a t i on f

orw ri t o f habe a s c orpus i n be ha l f of apr i s one rw ho i s a uthor i z e d t o appl y f orr e l i e f by m ot i on p u rsu a ntt o thi s s e c t i on, s h a ll n o t b e e n te r ta i n e d if it ap p e a r s th a t th e ap p lic a n t h a s f a ile d to appl y f or re l i ef , by m otio n , to th e c ou rtw hi ch se nt ence d h i m , or that s uc h c our t ha s de ni e d hi m r e l i e f , unl e s s i t a l s o appe a r s tha t the r e m e dy b y m o tio n is in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2255. A c c or di ngl y , ac our tm a y e nt e r t a i n a§ 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i on a tt a c ki ng3

cust od y r es ul ti n g fr om a f eder al l y i m po se d sent ence i f the pet i t i on eres t abl i shes tha tthe r e m e dy pr ovi de d f orunde r§ 2255 i s i na de qua t e o r i n effecti v e. S e e 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5
. W e ha ve e s t abl i s he d tha tthe s a vi ngs c l a us e o n l y appl i e s w he n ( 1) the pe t i t i one r ’ s c l a i m i s ba s e d on a retr oa c t i ve l y appl i c abl e S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on; (2) the ho l di ng of tha t de c i s i on e s t abl i s he d tha t the pe t i t i on e r w a s c on vi c t ed of a

“ none xi s t e nt o ffen se ” ; 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 ac l a i m a tthe t i m e i to th erw i se sh o u l d h av e b een rai sed a t th e p et i t i o n er’ s tri al , ap p eal , o r fi rst § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . ” W o ffo rd v . S co tt , 1 7 7 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ); see al so S aw ye r, 32 6 F
. 3d at13 65 -66 (appl yi ng the three -partW offord t es t ). In order f or a p ri so n er t o av ai l h i m sel f o f th e § 2 2 4 1 rem ed y u n d er W o ffo rd , al l th re e c r ite r ia
m us tbe sat i s f

i e d. A s w e ha ve m a de c l e a r , a l l thr e e c r i t e r i aw i l l be m e ti n onl y the
na rr ow e s tof

c i r c um s t a nc e s . W of

f or d, 177 F
. 3 d at 1 2 4 4. A pe t i t i one rm a y not
a r gue a c tua l i nnoc e nc e unt i l he ha s “ ope n[ e d] the por t a l ” t o a § 2 2 4 1 pr oc e e di ng by d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e s a v in g s c la u s e ap p lie s to h is c la im . I d . a t 1 2 4 4 n .3
. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n ot er r b y d is m i ss i ng F l ores ’ s § 22 41 pet i t i on . F l ores i s p recl u d ed fro m seek i n g rel i ef u n d er § 2 2 4 1 b ecau se § 2 2 5 5 ’ s sav i n g s cl au se d o e s n o t ap p ly
. F lo r e s h a s f ile d th e p r e s e n t § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n in a n e f f o r t to ci rc um vent the rul es l i m i t i ng the sc op e of succ es si ve § 225 5 m ot i on s. A l so , F l oresMoreover, F lores’s c laims of actual innocencearemere ly conclusory

and would, in any 1 e vent, beinsuf

fi c ient. 4 ca nn ot me e tthe f

i r s tpr on g o f

the t e s ti n W of

f or d b e c a us e he ha s no tde mons tr a t ed tha thi s c l a i m i s ba s e d on ar e tr oa c t i v e l y appl i c abl e S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on, a nd thus w e n eed n o ta ddr e s s the r e m a i ni ng pr ongs . S e e W of f or d, 177 F
. 3d a t1244- 45. F lo r e s a l s o c la im s a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . B e c a u s e F lo r e s is a tte m p tin g to
c ir c u m v e n t § 2 2 5 5 ’s p r o h ib itio n a g a i n s t s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n s a n d b e c a u s e a ll o f h is
ar gu m ent s f

or re l i ef fa i l the W offord t es t , w e nee d n otreach the i ss ue of actual i nn ocence. F l ores ca nn otes t abl i sh ac tual i nn oc en ce because he i s unabl e t o “ op en
ap o r ta l” to a§ 2 2 4 1 p r o c e e d in g b y e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s a v in g s c la u s e ap p lie s to h i m. Up o n ar e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d a n d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . AF F I RME D. 1