[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 2- 13 21 1
Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 2 :1 2- cv -0 00 44 -LGW -J EG

JULIO RAM OS,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

W ARDEN, FCI JES UP

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 ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(Dece m be r 26 , 20 12 )

Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 1 of 7Ju li o Ram os ap pe al s th e de ci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t, whi ch co ns tru ed hi s

ha be as co rp us pe ti ti on fil ed pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 as a m ot io n to va cat e un de r

28 U.S.C. § 22 55 , a nd di sm is se d th e m ot io n a s s eco nd or su cces si ve

. Afte r ha vi ng

hi s i ni ti al § 22 55 m ot io n de ni ed , R am os fil ed th e § 22 41 pe ti ti on at is su e, in whi ch

he al le ge d th at th e go ve rn m en t’s pr os ecu ti on of hi m fo r a dr ug -tr affi ck in g co ns pi racy

ha d vi ol at ed a tre at y betw een th e Uni te d St at es an d th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c, Ram os ’s

ho m e co un try. On a pp eal , he a rg ue s t ha t § 22 41 was t he pro pe r pr oc ed ur al ve hi cl e

fo r hi s cl ai m be cau se § 22 41 pr ov id ed th e ex cl us iv e rem ed y fo r vi ol at io ns of a tre at y ,

an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t s h ou ld no t ha ve co ns tru ed it as a § 22 55 m ot io n an d

di sm is se d i t as sec on d o r su cces si ve . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

.

“ W he n rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e n i a l of a § 22 55 m ot io n, we rev ie w

fin d i n g s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d qu es ti on s of la w de no vo .” Rh od e v. Uni te d

St at es , 58 3 F .3d 12 89 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o a di st ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l of a § 22 55 m ot io n as se co nd or su cces si ve

. McI ve r v. Uni te d St at es , 30 7

F.3 d 13 27

, 13 29 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). Alt ho ug h we ge ne ral ly co ns tru e pr o se pl ead in gs

li be ral l y, t h e p art y ab an do ns an y is su es no t rai se d on ap pe al

. Tim so n v. Sam ps on ,

51 8 F .3d 87 0, 8 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

A fed eral pr is on er m ay fil e a § 22 55 m ot io n “ up on th e gr ou nd th at th e se nt en ce

was im po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e Uni te d St at es , or th at th e

2 Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 2 of 7co ur t was wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on to im po se su ch se nt en ce, or th at t h e s e n t e n c e was in

ex ces s of th e m ax im

um au t h o r i z e d by la w, or is ot he rwis e su bjec t to co ll at eral

at ta ck .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (a). Sect io n 22 41 of Tit le 2 8 pr ov id es th at th e writ of

ha be as co rp us ex te nd s to a pr is on er who is in cu st od y “ in vi o la ti on of th e

Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws or treat ie s of th e Uni te d St at es .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 (c)( 3)

. Thi s

la ng ua ge is m irr or ed in 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (a), whi ch pr ov id es fo r ha be as rel ie f fo r st at e

pr is on ers . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( a).

A ny ch al le ng e to th e ex ecu ti on of a se nt en ce, rat he r th an th e va li di ty o f t h e

se nt en ce it se lf, sh ou ld be br ou gh t un de r § 22 41

, no t § 22 5 5

. Ant on el li v. W ard en ,

U.S.P. Atl an ta , 5 42 F.3 d 13 48 , 1 35 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 8 )

. A l t h o ug h th e la ng ua ge of §

22 55 do es no t pr ov id e fo r ch al le ng es ba se d on al le ge d tre at y vi ol at io ns , th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ th ere can be no do ub t th at th e gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f un de r § 22 55 are

eq ui va le nt to th os e en co m pa ss ed by § 2 2 5 4, th e ge ne ral fed eral ha be as co rp us

st at ut e,” whi ch pr ov id es fo r rel ie f whe n a pe rs on is in c us to dy i n vi ol at io n of , i nt er

al ia

, th e tre at ie s of th e Uni te d St at es

. Dav is v. Uni te d St at es , 41 7 U.S. 33 3, 34 4

(1 97 4)

. W e al so ha ve no te d th at th e g r o u nd s fo r rel ie f fo r no n- co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns un de r § 22 54

, whi ch in cl u d e s t r e at y vi ol at io ns , are eq ui va le nt to th os e

en co m pa ss ed by § 22 55

. Ada m s v. Lan kf o r d

, 7 8 8 F .2d 14 93

, 14 95 n.4 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 86 ) (ci ti ng Davi s, 4 17 U.S. at 3 44 ).

3

Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 3 of 7The Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96 (“ AEDPA”), Pu b.

L. No. 10 4- 13 2, 1 10 Sta t. 1 21 4 (1 99 6) , req ui res th at , bef or e a se co nd or su cces si ve

m ot io n is fil ed

, t h e mo v a n t f i rs t m us t ob ta in an or de r fro m th e co ur t of ap pe al s

au th or iz in g th e di st ric t co ur t t o co ns id er it

. 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 44 (b )(3 )(A), 22 55 (h ).

W it ho ut th is au th or iz at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er a se co nd

or su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n. Farr is v. Uni te d St at es , 33 3 F.3 d 12 11

, 12 16 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 0 3 )

. We w il l ge ne ral ly l oo k be y on d th e la be l of m ot io ns fil ed by p ro se in m at es

to in te rp ret th em un de r wha te ve r st at ut e wou ld pr ov id e rel ie f. Mea ns v

. Alab am a,

20 9 F .3d 12 41 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

Und er § 22 55 (e), a fed eral pr is on er who is ot he rwis e ba rred fro m fil in g a

se co nd or su cces si ve m ot io n to va cat e m ay ch al le ng e hi s cu st od y in a § 22 41 pe ti ti on

if it “ ap pe ars th at th e rem ed y by m ot io n is in ad eq ua te or in effe ct iv e to te st th e le ga li ty

of hi s de te nt io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (e). Alt ho ug h we ha ve no t fu ll y de fin ed th e sc op e

of th e § 22 5 5 (e) sa vi ng s cl au se , we ha ve no te d th at th e sa vi ng s cl au se m ay pe rm it

cl ai m s un de r § 22 41 th at a pr is on er was co n v i c t e d o f a no ne xi st en t cri m e ba se d on

a ret ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on

. W of fo rd v. Sco tt

, 17 7 F.3 d 12 36

,

12 44 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ). Howev er, in an en ba nc de ci si on , we no te d th at th is st at em en t

was “ on ly di ct a” be cau se al l of W of fo rd ’s cl ai m s were se nt en ci ng cl ai m s th at co ul d

ha ve be en pr es en te d at tri a l o r o n ap pe al

. Gil be rt v. Uni te d St at es , 64 0 F.3 d 12 93

,

4 Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 4 of 713 19 (1 1t h Cir. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2 S.Ct

. 10 01 (2 01 2)

. Reg ard le ss , a

§ 22 41 ha be as pe ti ti on m ay no t be us ed to av o i d t h e r e st ric ti on s on se co nd or

su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io ns whe n a pr is on er fai le d to rai se th e cl ai m at an earl ie r st ag e.

W of fo rd , 17 7 F .3d at 1 24 5.

Here, th e di st ric t c o u r t d i d n o t err by co ns tru in g Ram os ’s fil in g as a § 22 55

m ot io n an d di sm is si ng it as se co nd or su cces si ve

. Ram os fil ed an un su cces sf ul §

22 55 m ot io n pr io r to fil in g th e § 22 41 pe ti ti on at is su e he re. Alt ho ug h cap ti on ed as

a § 22 41 pe ti ti on , Ram os se ek s to ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of hi s co nv i c ti on s an d

se nt en ces , no t t he ex ecu ti on of h is sen te nc es , and , th eref or e, th e m ot io n i s p ro pe rly

ch arac te riz ed as a § 22 55 m ot io n. See Ant on el li

, 5 4 2 F.3 d at 13 52

. W e reco gn iz e

th at th e la ng ua ge of § 22 55 do es no t pr ov id e ex pr es sl y fo r ch al le ng es to co nv ic ti on s

an d s e n t e n c es ba se d on al le ge d tre at y vi ol at io ns ; ho wev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

co nc lu de d th at th e gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f un de r § 22 55 m irr or th os e av ai la bl e un de r §

22 54

, whi ch pe rm it s ch al le ng es ba s e d o n t r eat y vi ol at io ns

. See Dav is

, 41 7 U.S. at

34 4. Th eref

or e, Ram os ’s st at ut or y

in te rp ret at io n a rg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t.

Fu rth er, Ram os ’s r e l i a n c e on Darb y an d Nor ie ga is m is pl aced

. In Darb y v.

Hawk- Sawy er, 40 5 F.3 d 94 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ), we de cl in ed to de ci de whe th er § 22 41

pr ov id ed th e ex cl us iv e rem ed y fo r al le g e d t reat y vi ol at io ns

. See id

. at 94 6.

The refo re, Darb y d oe s no t he lp Ram os ’s arg um en t. Ram os al so can no t rel y on

5 Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 5 of 7Nor ie ga v. Pas tra n a , 56 4 F.3 d 12 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ), be cau se Nor ie ga was no t

ch al le ng in g th e va li di ty of hi s co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce, so § 22 55 wou ld ha ve be en an

in ap pr op ria te pro ced ur al ve hi cl e to ob ta in th e rel ie f so ug ht . See id . a t 12 93 -9 4. In

co nt ras t, as di sc us se d ab ov e, § 22 55 is th e ap pr op ria te pr oc ed ur al ve hic le for Ram os ’s

cl ai m s be cau se Ram os is ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Acco rd in gl y , we

affi rm

. 1

AFFIRMED.

I n addition, Ramos has abandone d any arg ument that he wa s entitled to file a § 2241 1 petition under the saving s clause in § 2255( e) a nd Wofford bec ause he did not raise that issue on

appea l. See Timson, 418 F.3d at 874.

6

Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 6 of 7MARTIN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g:

I ag ree wit h th e m ajor it y ’s co nc lu si on th at t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

co ns tru in g Mr. Ram os ’s § 22 41 pe ti ti on as a § 22 55 m ot io n an d di s mi s s in g it as

se co n d or su cces si ve

. I writ e se pa rat el y on ly to em ph as iz e, as th e m ajor it y

reco gn iz es , th at “ we ha ve no t f ul ly de fin ed th e sc op e” of th e sa vi ng s cl au se in 28

U.S.C. § 22 55 (e). I can co nc ei ve of ci rcu m st an ces in w h i c h § 2 2 4 1 is ap pr op ria te

to ad dr es s a fed eral pr is on er’s tre at y vi ol at io n cl ai m

. See, e.g ., Garza v. Lap pi n, 25 3

F.3 d 91 8, 92 1– 23 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at § 22 55 was in ad eq u a t e rem ed y

wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e sa vi ng s cl au se , th us ba n on su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io ns di d

no t pr ecl ud e fed eral pr is on er fro m fil in g § 22 41 pe ti ti on rai si ng tre at y cl ai m th at was

no t avai la bl e u nt il aft er firs t § 22 55 m ot io n was den ie d)

. Howev er, Mr. Ram os ’s is

no t o n e of th os e cas es

. He ha s no t de m on st rat ed th at hi s tre at y ba se d cl ai m was

un av ai la bl e at th e ti me h e c o u l d h a v e rai se d it at tri al , a pp eal , o r in hi s fir st § 22 55

m ot io n.

7

Case: 12-13211 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 7 of 7