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,

Respondents-Appellees

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 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. 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: 06/24/2020
No. 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 893, 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 argues 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: 06/24/2020
No. 18-60807

3

address § 666 and interpreted a component of a materially different crime. 136 

S. Ct. at 2365-75. 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 

influence 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, 345-47 (5th Cir. 2009); cf. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 56-58 

(1997) (describing expansive 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 retroactively, 

or his instant challenge to § 666 was previously foreclosed, 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