### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60807 Summary Calendar

PAUL WINFIELD , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. UNITED STATES PROBATION & PRETRIAL SERVICES; CHRIS COUNTS , Respondent s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:18

- CV

- 11

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paul Winfield, former federal prisoner # 17050

- 043 , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his conviction for bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). The district court found that he did not satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). We review the district court’s factual

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 24, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60807 Document: 00515464961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2020No. 18

- 60807

2 findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Christopher v. Miles , 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). A prisoner may use § 2241 to challenge his conviction only if the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to contest the legality of his detention. § 2255( e). Winfield must establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion by satisfying the criteria of the savings clause of § 2255. See § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 8 93, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Under this circuit’s existing precedent , Winfield can meet that criteria if he shows that his petition presents a claim based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that supports that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claim was foreclosed by circuit law when it should have been raised at trial, on direct appeal, or in his initial § 2255 motion. See Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at
904. Winfield contests the legality of his conviction and a rgues that he can satisfy the Reyes

- Requena criteria in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016). He contends that even though the Court in McDonnell did not construe his statute of conviction
, the decision

— which he asserts is retroactively applicable

— is apposite because it narrowed the conduct that qualified as bribery and set forth principles for how guilt should be decided in prosecutions for federal bribery offenses

. Winfield
asserts that the holding of McDonnell indicates that § 666 is overbroad , that he was charged with, and convicted of , a nonexistent offense , and that his prosecution raised federalism concerns.
In McDonnell , the Court construed the definition of “ official act” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) , and did not delimit , consider, or invalidate an element of § 666. See 136 S. Ct. at 2365

- 2375. The decision in McDonnell did not Case: 18-60807 Document: 00515464961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2020No. 18

- 60807

3 address § 666 and interpreted a component of a materially different crime

. 136 S. Ct. at 2365

- 7 5. Moreover, a bribery offense under § 666 is not restricted to “official acts,” as defined in § 201(a)(3) and interpreted by McDonnell , and broadly bars corruptly soliciting or accepting a thing of value in exchange for influen ce or reward in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions . § 666(a)(1)(B) & § 666(b); see United States v. Whitfield , 590 F.3d 325, 34 5

- 47 (5th Cir. 2009) ; cf. Salinas v. United States , 522 U.S. 52, 56

- 58 (1997) (describing expa nsive language of § 666 and rejecting arguments in favor of circumscribing text)

. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the holding of McDonnell applies to the expansive language of § 666 that, by its plain text, covers more than “official acts.” See § 666(a)(1)(B) & § 666(b). Winfield has not shown that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of McDonnell . Thus, regardless whether McDonnell applies retroactivel y ,

or his instant challenge to § 666 was previously foreclose d, he has not established that he can meet the Reyes

- Requena requirements to proceed under the savings clause. 243 F.3d at 903

- 04; see also Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830

. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 18-60807 Document: 00515464961 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2020