FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 8, 2007 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. 06- 14022 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 1 5 2 0 - CV - PCH C H A R L E S F R A N K W I L L I A M S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 8, 2007 ) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h ar les F ra n k W il li am s, a p ro se fe d er al p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’sWil liams filed his § 2241 petition after the e ffe ctive dateof the Antiterrorism and 1 Effe ctive De ath Penalty

Act of 1996 ( “AED PA”), Pub. L . No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). Th ere fo re , th eprov isi on s o f t heAE DPAg ov ern

thi s a pp e al. The availability

of habe as re lief under

§ 2241 presents a question of law that we review 2 de novo. Cook v. Wil ey, 208 F.3d 1314, 1317 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 2 d i s mi s s a l o f

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

o ra w 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. § 2 2 4 1 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed W i l l i am s’ s p et i t i o n w i th o u tp rej u d i ce as a

1 s u c c e s s i v e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n t o v a c a t e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. 2 I . BA C K G R O U N D FA C TS W illia m s w a s in d ic te d o n d ru g d is tr ib u tio n c h a r g e s in tw o c o u n ts , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ( C ount s I & I I ) , w i th be i ng af e l on i n pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) ( C ountI V ) , a nd w ith k n o w in g ly a n d w illf u lly p o s s e s s in g c o u n te r f e it f e d e r a l r e s e rv e n o te s w ith in te n t to d e f

r a u d , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 4 7 2 ( C o u n t V ) . C o u n t I I I , th e o n ly c onvi c t i on a ti s s ue i n thi s appe a l , c ha r ge d W i l l i a m s w i th “ us i ng a nd c a rry i ng” f i r e a rm s , a nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng hi s c o- de f e nda nti n the “ us i ng a nd c a rry i ng” of f i r e a rm s , dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a drug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 924( c ) a nd 2. W i l l i a m s e nt e r e d ac ondi t i ona l gui l ty pl e at o a l l f i ve co u n t s, reserv i n g fo r ap p eal o n l y th e i ssu e o f th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress e v id e n c e . D u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y , th e g o v e rn m e n t m a d e a p r o f f e ro f th e f a c ts3

supp ort i ng the gu i l ty pl ea . In re l evantpartt o C ou ntII I, the go vernm entst at ed that the S uw a ne e C ounty S he r i f f’ s D e pa r tm e ntpul l e d ove ra F or d B r onc o ow ne d by W i l l i am s f

or fa i l i ng t o d i spl aya l i ce nse pl at e. W i l l i am s’ s c o-defendant , L ee O l i ver E dm on d, w as dri vi ng , and W i l l i am s w as ri di ng i n the pass enger s ea t . A ft er offi ce rs l ea rned thatW i l l i am s w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on , W i l l i am s t ol d them thatthey coul d n otse ar ch hi s c arbecause i tcont ai ned a fi re arm . T he offi ce rs arre st ed W i l l i a m s f

orbe i ng a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm . A s ubs e que nts e a r c h of the B r onc o f ound 200 gr a m s of

c oc a i ne ba s e , f

ourgr a m s of

c oc a i ne pow de r , a s e tof sc al es , ra zor bl ades , tw o fi re arm s a nd a box of am m un i t i on . O ne fi re arm , a l oaded B row ni ng m od el H i -P ow er. 9 m m pi st ol , w as foun d i n the ce nt erconsol e betw ee n th e d r i v e ra n d p a s s e n g e rs e a t s . T h e o th e rf i r e a rm f o u n d i n th e B r o n c o wa s a n AA A rm s m o d e l A P - 9 .9 m m p is to l. A ft erhear i ng the go vernm ent ’ s proff er , W i l l i am s a gree d thatthe fa ct s w er e true . W i l l i a m s a l s o a dm i tt e d tha the ha d “ c a rr i e d” a f i r e a rm w hi l e c om m i tt i ng the d ru g traffi ck i n g cri m e ch arg ed i n C o u n tI, as fo l l o w s: T H E C O U R T : O n o rab o u t A u g u s t 2 2 , 1 9 9 1 , in S u w a n e e C o u n ty , in the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da , di d y ou c om m i tthe drug tr a f f i c ki ng cr i m e, thati s, coun ton e havi ng t o d o w i th the cr ac k cocai ne, w hen y ou w e r e pos s e s s i ng tha tc oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e i t , c oc a i ne base , di d you atthatt i m e kno w i ng l y use or ca rry afi re arm desc ri bed i n the i nd i ctm ent, thati s aB row ni ng m od el H i -P ow er. 9 m i l l i m et er p is to l a n d a A A A rm s m o d e l A P - 9 .9 m illim e te rp is to l? D E F E N D A N T W IL L IA M S : Y es , si r.4

T H E C O U R T : A n d d o y o u a d m it th a t y o u c a rr ie d th a t p is to l w h ile y o u w e r e a ls o g u ilty o f

a n d in th e p r o c e s s o f

c o m m ittin g th e c r im e in coun ton e? D E F E N D A N T W IL L IA M S : Y es , si r. O n F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 1 9 9 2 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d W illia m s to a 2 0 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e o n C o u n ts I a n d I I , a1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e o n C o u n t I V , 1 8 0 - m o n th se nt ence on C ou ntV , al l t o run concurrent l y. T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d W i l l i am s t o a consecut i ve 5-ye arse nt ence on C ou ntII I. W illia m s ap p e a le d , c h a lle n g in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g o n h is m o tio n to su p p ress. T h i s C o u rtaffi rm ed W i l l i am s’ s co n v i ct i o n . U n i t ed S t at es v . W i l l i am s, N o. 92- 2191 ( 11th C i r . O c t . 21, 1992) . T he S upr e m e C our tde ni e d c e r t i or a r i on F e brua ry 22, 1993. O n A pri l 29 , 19 93 , W i l l i am s f i l ed a § 22 55 m ot i on t o v ac at e hi s s ent ence , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtdeni ed on A ug ust6, 19 93 . W i l l i am s f i l ed an appeal of that deni al , w hi ch appeal thi s C ou rtdi sm i ss ed on A pri l 29 , 19 98 . W i l l i am s v. U ni t ed S ta te s , N o . 9 3 - 3 1 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . A p r . 2 9 , 1 9 9 8 ) . O n D ecem b er 6 , 1 9 9 5 , th e S u p rem e C o u rtd eci d ed B ai l ey v . U n i t ed S t at es, 51 6 U . S . 13 7, 11 6 S . C t . 50 1 (19 95 ). In B ai l ey , the S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed that ac onvi c t i on unde r§ 924( c ) ’ s “ us e ” pr ong, a s di s t i nc tf r om the “ c a rry ” pr ong, r e qui r e s “ a c t i ve e m pl oy m e nt , ” s uc h a s “ br a ndi s hi ng, di s pl a y i ng, ba r t e r i ng, s tr i ki ng w ith , a n d , m o s t o b v io u s ly , f ir in g o ra tte m p tin g to f

ir e a f ir e a rm ,” a s o p p o s e d toWil liams’s § 2241 petition was filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, but was 3 transferre d to the Southern District of F lorida, where Williams was incarc erated at the time. 5 m e r e pos s e s s i on. B a i l e y , 516 U . S . a t148, 116 S . C t . a t508; s e e a l s o C a s t i l l o v. U ni t ed S t at es , 20 0 F . 3d 73 5, 73 6-37 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). O n M a r c h 18, 2004, W i l l i a m s f i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2241 pe t i t i on, r a i s i ng a cl ai m base d o n B ai l ey . A m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eportand recom m endat i on (“ R & R ”) 3 r e c om m e nde d tha tW i l l i a m s ’ s pe t i t i on be di s m i s s e d a s a s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on an d co n clu d ed th at § 2 2 5 5 ’s sa v in g s c lau se d idn o t ap p ly. O v erW il li am s’s obj ec t i on s, the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed W i l l i am s’ s pet i t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce base d on the r e a s ons i n the R & R . W e gr a nt e d W i l l i a m s a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on th e is s u e o f

“[ w ]h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y c o n c lu d in g th a t ap p e lla n t c o u ld n o tc h a l l e n g e h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e th r o u g h th e s a v i n g s c l a u s e o f 2 8 U . S. C. § 2255, i n l i ghtof

the s t a nda r d s e tf

or th i n W of

f or d v. S c ott , 177 F . 3d 1236, 1238 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) .” I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, W illia m s d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t h e f ile d a p r io r§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in 1993. I ns t e a d, W i l l i a m s a r gue s tha t§ 2255’ s s a vi ngs c l a us e appl i e s t o hi s § 2241 pet i t i on . S peci fi ca l l y, W i l l i am s c on t ends thathe w as conv i ct ed of usi ng a f i re arm d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to a d ru g tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e , u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) , inAt the time of Will iams’s conviction, § 924(c ) imposed a f ive-year minimumterm of 4 imprisonment upon a person who “ duringand in re lation to any crime of violence or

drug traff ickingcrime . . . use s or ca rries a firea rm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) ( 1993). 6 v i o l at i o n o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n B ai l ey. 4 T o fal l w i th i n th e sav i n g s cl au se, a p ri so n er m u stsh o w th atan o th erw i se a va i l abl e r e m e dy unde r§ 2255 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 ty of h i s d et en t i o n . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e restri ct i o n s o n su ccessi v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n s, s t a ndi ng a l one , do notr e nde rtha ts e c t i on “ i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve ” w i thi n the m ea ni ng of the sa vi ng s c l ause . W offord v. S cott , 17 7 F . 3d 12 36 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 1999) . R a the r , unde rW of f or d v. S c ott , the s a vi ngs c l a us e appl i e s t o a c l a i m w he n: ( 1) the c l a i m i s ba s e d upon a r e tr 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 thatS up re m e C ou rtdeci si on es t abl i shes the pri soner w as conv i ct ed for ano n-exi st entdefe nse; and (3) ci rc ui tl aw square l y f orec l osed such a c l ai m at th e tim e it o th e rw is e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n r a is e d in th e p r is o n e r ’s tr ia l, ap p e a l o rf ir s t § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . I d . a t 1 2 4 4 . A p e titio n e rm a y n o t a r g u e th e m e r its o f h is c la im u n til he ha s “ ope n[ e d] the por t a l ” t o a§ 2241 pr oc e e di ng by de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe s a vi ngs c l a us e appl i e s t o hi s c l a i m . I d. a t1244 n. 3. T he pa r t i e s do notdi s put e tha tW i l l i a m s ’ s B a i l e y c l a i m s a t i s f i e s the f i r s ta nd thi r d pr ongs of

the W of f or d t e s t . B a i l e y w a s de c i de d a f t e rW i l l i a m s ’ s § 2255 m ot i on w as deni ed and i s r etroac t i vel y app l i ed t o cas es on col l at er al re vi ew . S ee B o u s le y v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 3 U .S . 6 1 4 , 6 2 1 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1 6 0 4 , 1 6 1 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) .7

F u r th e rm o r e , p r io rto B a ile y , o u rC ir c u it in te rp r e te d § 9 2 4 ( c ) ’s “u s e ” p r o n g to i ncl ud e posse ss i on thatdi d n oti ncl ud e a ct i ve em pl oym entof the fi re arm . S ee , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ool e , 878 F . 2d 1389, 1393 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . T hus , the i s s ue o n ap p eal i n th i s case i s w h eth er W i l l i am s est ab l i sh ed th e seco n d p ro n g , th ati s, tha the w a s c onvi c t e d of a n of f e ns e m a de non- e xi s t e ntby B a i l e y . W e c onc l ude th a t h e d id n o t. B a i l e y appl i e s onl y t o de f e nda nt s w ho a r e c onvi c t e d of us i ng af i r e a rm a nd nott o de f

e nda nt s w ho a r e c onvi c t e d of c a rry i ng af

i r e a rm . S e e C a s t i l l o, 200 F . 3d at73 7; T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). In or de rt o s a t i s f

y hi s bur de n unde rthe W of f or d t e s t , W i l l i a m s w a s r e qui r e d t o s how th a t h e w a s c o n v ic te do f u s in g a f ir e a rm . H ow e ve r , W i l l i a m s ’ s i ndi c tm e nta nd the tr a ns c r i ptof hi s pl e ac ol l oquy m a ke cl ea r thatW i l l i am s pl ed gu i l ty t o “ ca rryi ng ” afi re arm du ri ng the com m i ss i on of a drug tra ff

i cki ng offe nse. S peci fi ca l l y, W i l l i am s’ s i nd i ctm entchar ged that W illia m s “k n o w in g ly d id u s e a n d c a rry . . . f ir e a rm s ” a n d h e a d m itte d d u r in g h is p le ac o llo q u y to c a rry in g o n e o f th e p is to ls c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. Fu r th e rmo r e , th e f

a c t s p r o f f e r e d b y th e g o v e rn me n ta n d a d mi tt e d b y W i l l i a ms du ri ng hi s pl eashow thatW i l l i am s kno w i ng l y tra nspo rt ed the fi re arm s i n h i s c ar , w h ic h w a s b e in g u s e d a s a d ru g d is tr ib u tio n c e n te r . T h e s e f a c ts a r e s u f

f ic ie n t to s uppor tac onvi c t i on f

orc a rry i ng af

i r e a rm dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a drugIn his § 2241 petition, W illiams st ates that one“fire arm wa s discovere d in the vehicle’ s 5 locked c enter

console in a black leather ha nd bagand a se cond fire arm wa s discovere d in the vehic le ’slugg ag edepa

rtment in th every

re ar o f t hevehic lein a

locke d b lac k b ri e fc a se .”Thus , e ven under t

hefac ts Wi lli ams alle g e d in his§ 2 24 1 p e tition , Wil liams “ c arrie d”thefire arm s within the meaningof § 924(c ). 8 tr a f f ic k in g c r im e . S e e T a n n e n b a u m , 1 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 3 ( “I n o r d e rto c o n v ic t a de f e nda ntf or‘ c a rry i ng’ a f

i r e a rm , i ti s ne c e s s a ry onl y t o s how tha tthe de f e nda nt know i ngl y c a rr i e d agun i n ac a rtha tw a s be i ng us e d a s a drug- di s tr i but i on c e nt e r . ” ) ; C a s t i l l o, 200 F . 3d a t737 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t , s i nc e B a i l e y , “ s o l ong a s the de f e nda ntw a s c ha r ge d unde rboth the ‘ us e ’ a nd ‘ c a rry ’ pr ongs of the s t a tut e , the conv i ct i on m aybe sust ai ned i f the evi dence proves carryi ng bu tno tuse” ). 5 W i l l i a m s ’ s of

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on f

e l l unde rthe “ c a rry ” pr ong of § 924( c ) , not unde rthe “ us e ” pr ong. T hus , W i l l i a m s ha s f a i l e d t o s how unde rthe s e c ond pr ong of W offord thathe w as conv i ct ed of a non -e xi st entoffe nse. A s are sul t , he has a ls o f a ile d to “o p e n th e p o r ta l” to § 2 2 4 1 . S e e W o f f o r d , 1 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 4 n .3 . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby di s m i s s i ng W i l l i a m s ’ s § 2241 pe t i t i on. AF F I RME D.