FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT APRIL2, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 14603 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 6 2 9 - CV - W SD T E R R A N C E T O M L I N S O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I C H A E L Z E N K , W a r d e n o f

F C I A tla n ta , 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l2, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A 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:2

T erra n ce T o m li n so n , a p ro se fe d er al p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rw r i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s f

i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2241, i n w hi c h he a r gue d tha thi s s e nt e nc e s houl d be va c a t e d i n l i ghtof the r e ve r s a l of

apr i ors t a t e f

e l ony c onvi c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d the pe t i t i on, adop t i ng the re po rtand recom m endat i on of the m agi stra t e j ud ge, w hi ch foun d that T om l i ns on c oul d nots a t i s f y the s a vi ngs c l aus e of

28 U . S . C . § 2255. 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 of l aw that w e r e v ie w d e n o v o . C o o kv . W ile y , 2 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . 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 b e b r o u g h t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 . S a w y e rv . H o ld e r , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 3 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . H ow ever , un der l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance s, a provi si on of § 2 25 5 p erm i t s afe dera l pri soner t o fi l e ahabeas pet i t i on pu rs uantt o § 22 41 . S ee §§ 22 41 (a ), 22 55 . T hat p ro v i si o n , k n o w n as th e “ sav i n g s cl au se, ” p ro v i d es:

A n app l i ca t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n b ehal f of a p r is o n e rw h o is au th o r iz e d to ap p lyf o rr e lie f b ym o tio n p u r s u a n t to thi s s ec t i on , shal l no tbe ent ert ai ned i f i tappears thatthe appl i canthas f a i l e d t o ap p l y f

o rr e l i e f , b y mo t i o n , t o th e c o u rtw h i c h s e n t e n c e d h i m, ortha ts uc h c ourtha s de ni e d hi m r e l i e f , unl e s s i ta l s o appe a r s tha tthe r e m e dy by m ot i on i s i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve t o t e s tthe l e ga l i tyof hi s de t e nt i on. § 2255. A c c or di ngl y , ac ourtm a y e nt e rt a i n a§ 2241 pe t i t i on a tt a c ki ng c us t ody r e s ul t i ng f

r om af e de r a l l y i m pos e d s e nt e nc e i f the pe t i t i one re s t abl i s he s tha tthe3

r e m e dy pr ovi de d f

orunde r§ 2255 i s i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve . S a w y e r , 326 F . 3d a t1365. T he bur de n of c om i ng f

orw a r d w i th e vi de nc e a f f i rm a t i ve l ys how i ng the in a d e q u a c y o rin e f

f e c tiv e n e s s o f

th e § 2 2 5 5 r e m e d yr e s ts w ith th e m o v a n t. M cG hee v. H anberry , 60 4 F . 2d 9, 10 (5th C i r. 19 79 ). W h en a p ri so n er h as p rev i o u sl y fi l ed a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n t o v acat e, h e m u st appl y f ora nd r e c e i ve pe rm i s s i on f r om the C ourtof

A ppe a l s be f

or e f i l i ng a succ es si ve § 2 25 5 m ot i on . 28 U . S . C . §§ 22 44 (b)( 3), 22 55 . W e have hel d thatsuch re stri ct i on s on succe ss i ve § 2 25 5 m ot i on s, st andi ng al on e, do no tre nd erthat s e c tio n “in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e s a v in g s c lau s e . W o f f o r d v . S c o tt, 1 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . C o n s e q u e n tly , a pe t i t i one rw ho ha s f

i l e d apr e vi ous , uns uc c e s s f ul § 2255 m ot i on m a ynot c ir c u m v e n t th e s u c c e s s iv e - m o tio n b a rs im p lyb yf ilin g ap e titio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . I d . W e h av e e stab li sh ed th at th e s av in g s c lau se o n ly ap p li es w h en (1 ) th e p etit io n er ’s c l a i m i s ba s e d on ar e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c abl e S upr e m e C ourtde c i s i on; ( 2) the ho l di ng of thatdeci si on es t abl i shed thatthe pet i t i on erw as conv i ct ed of a

“ none xi s t e ntof

f e ns e ” ; a nd ( 3) “ c i r c ui tl a w s qua r e l yf 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 atth e p et i t i o n er’ s tri al , ap p eal , o r fi rst § 2255 m ot i on. ” I d. a t1244. I n or de rf orapr i s one rt o a va i l hi m s e l f of the § 2241 r e m e dy unde rthe t e s ti n W of f or d, a l l thr e e c r i t e r i am us tbe s a t i s f i e d. A s w e ha ve4

m a d e c le a r , a ll th r e e c r ite r iaw ill b e m e t o n lyin th e n a rr o w e s t o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d. A pe t i t i one rm a y nota r gue the m e r i t s of hi s c l a i m unt i l he ha s “ ope n[ e d] the p o rta l” to a§ 2 2 4 1 p r o c e e d in g b y d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e s a v in g s c lau s e ap p lie s to hi s c l a i m . I d. a t1244 n. 3. A ft erre vi ew of the re cord and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e di sc ern n o err or. T o m lin s o n h a s f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e r e m e d yp r o v id e d f o ru n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o rin e f

f e c tiv e . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb yd is m is s in g h is § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n , a n d w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.