FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 15, 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. 07- 11102 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 2 4 8 - C V- 5 - R S - AK C H A R L I E F . W O F F O R D , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S C O T T M I D D L E B R O O K , W a r d e n , 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 N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The mag istrate judg e’s report a nd rec ommendation noted that Wofford had twice 1 sought to challeng e the validity of his convictions and sentence in the Souther n District of Mississ ippi. 2 T h is is th e f

if th tim e C h a r lie F . W o f

f o r d h a s s o u g h t in th e c o u r ts o f th is c ir c u it to c h a lle n g e th e v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n s f

o rc o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but i on c oc a i ne , 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) & 846, a nd pos s e s s i ng a fi re arm w hi l e aconv i ct ed fe l on , 18 U . S . C . 92 2 (g), and t he re sul t i ng fi ft ee n-ye ar s e nt e nc e . T hi s m os tr e c e ntc ha l l e nge , l i ke the pr e vi ous one , w a s f i l e d a s a pe t i t i on 1 f o rw r it o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W offord’ s pet i t i on al l eges thatbefore N ov em ber 18, 19 88 , an i nd i vi du al c oul d notbe c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y unde r21 U . S . C . § 846 w he n the unde r l y i ng s ubs t a nt i ve c r i m e w a s a vi ol a t i on of § 841( a ) ( 1) . T he r e f

or e , a c c or di ng t o W of

f or d, si nce the cr i m e occ urre d i n Jun e 198 8, he pl ea ded g ui l ty a nd w as conv i ct ed of a none xi s t e ntof

f e ns e . W of

f or d c l a i m s ( 1) tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c our t“ w a s w i thout ju r is d ic tio n to a c c e p t a g u ilty p le a to a n o n e x is te n t o f f e n s e ,” a n d ( 2 ) h is “g u ilty pl e a w a s notknow i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y [ gi ve n] ” be c a us e he “ w a s m i s i nf or m e d by the C ou rtas t o the ri gh tsubst ant i ve offe nse app l i cabl e t o the § 8 46 conspi ra cy o f f e n s e .” T h e m ag i strat e j u d g e reco m m en d ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd en y W o ffo rd ’ s § 2241 pe t i t i on be c a us e he ha d notm e tthe pr e r e qui s i t e s of the s a vi ngs c l a us e i n 28Wofford also argues that bec ause his off ense w as committed before the November 2 1988 amendments, the sentencingcourt erre d in applying thepenalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) to his conviction for 21 U.S.C. § 846. Even if conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it was an of fenseprior to November 1988, Wofford c ontends, therewas nothing to guide the sentencingdecision and theref ore thecourt should haveapplied the r ule of lenity . Be causeWofford did not raise the se points in his petit ion, we will not consider them here fo r t hefirs t time . Se eHurl e y

v. Mo ore , 2 33 F .3 d 1 29 5, 12 97 –9 8 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 0) (p e r curiam) (“Arguments raised f

or the fir st tim e on appe al are not properly before this Court. . . . Hurley ’s argument t

hat th eAE DPA ’s lim itatio ns peri od sh ould b ee quita

bly tol le d is raise d f

or thefirs t time on appeal and is not properly before this court.”) ; Nyland v. Moore, 216 F .3d 1264, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“ We decline to address Nyland’s new argument that his section 2254 petition was tolled duringthe time in which he c ould have f iled a petition for c ertiora ri with the United States Supreme Court bec ause Nyland did not raise this argument in the court below.”) ; Provenzano v. Singletar y , 148 F.3d 1327, 1329 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (The petitioner

3 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 in o r d e rto f ile h is § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . A c c o r d in g to th e m a g is tr a te j u d g e: (1 ) co n sp i racy b ased o n 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) w as i n d eed a v i ab l e o ffen se pri or t o N ov em ber 198 8; (2) there w as no re troac t i vel y app l i cabl e S up re m e C ou rt de c i s i on e s t a bl i s hi ng tha ta ny of W of f or d’ s c r i m e s w e r e none xi s t e nt ; a nd ( 3) W of f or d c oul d ha ve r a i s e d hi s j ur i s di c t i ona l a r gum e nta ttr i a l , on di r e c tappe a l , or i n hi s f i r s t§ 2255 m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d a nd ove rW of f or d’ s obj e c t i ons a d o p te d th e r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n in f u ll. W offord argues on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b ec ause : (1) c o n s p ir a c y to v io la te § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) w a s n o t a n o f f e n s e u n til th e 1 9 8 8 a m e n d m e n ts w e nti nt o e f

f e c t ; ( 2) B ous l e y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 614, 118 S . C t . 1604 ( 1998) , w a s a r e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c a bl e S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on tha tope ne d the p o r ta l to a § 2 2 4 1 p r o c e e d in g ; a n d ( 3 ) h e is n o t b a r r e d f r o m r a is in g h is j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r g u me n tb e c a u s e j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n n e v e rb e w a i v e d . W e a f f i r m. 2“ did

no t raisein t

hedis tric t c ourt

thec laim that c ouns e l w e reine ff e c tiv efo r f

ailingto obje c t to the sepa ration itself. That c laim appea rs for thefirst time in Provenzano’s brief to this Court. Be causehe did not raise theclaim below, wedo not consider it.”) . 4 In the appeal fr om W offord’ s l as tchal l enge t o h i s c on vi ct i on and sent ence , wh e r e h e a l s o s o u g h ta p e t i t i o n f o rwr i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n tt o § 2 2 4 1 , we h e ld th a t W o f

f o r d w a s o n ly e n title d to r e s o r t to h a b e a s r e lie f u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 if

h is p e titio n m e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e s a v in g s c la u s e in § 2 2 5 5 . W o f f o r d v . S c o tt, 1 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e s a v in g s c la u s e p r o v id e s th a t: A n ap p lic a tio n f

o rw r it o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in b e h a lf o f a p r is o n e rw h o is a u th o r iz e d to ap p ly f

o rr e lie f b y m o tio n p u r s u a n t to th is s e c tio n , s h a ll notbe e nt e r t a i ne d i f

i tappe a r s tha tthe appl i c a ntha s f a i l e d t o appl y f

or re l i ef , by m ot i on , t o the courtw hi ch se nt ence d h i m , or thatsuch court ha 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 ty of hi s de t e nt i on. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . W e c o n c lu d e d in W o f f o r d th a t: T h e s a v in g s c la u s e o f

§ 2 2 5 5 ap p lie s to a c la im w h e n : 1 ) th a t c la im is ba s e d upon a r e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c a bl 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 pet i t i on erw as c o n v ic te d f

o ra n o n e x is te n t o f

f e n s e ; a n d , 3 ) c ir c u it la w s q u a r e ly fore cl osed such a c l ai m atthe t i m e i totherw i se shou l d h ave been r a i s e d i n the pe t i t i one r ’ s tr i a l , appe a l , orf i r s t§ 2255 m ot i on. W of f or d, 177 F . 3d a t1244. W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t B o u s le y w a s n o t a r e tr o a c tiv e ly appl i cabl e S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on es t abl i shi ng thatW offord w as conv i ct ed for a n o n e x i s t e n to f

f e n s e . Th e Bo u s l e y Co u r th e l d th a tw h e n a d i s tr i c tc o u r tmi s i n f o r ms5

a d e f e n d a n t a b o u t th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c r im e c h a r g e d , th e r e s u ltin g p le a is c ons t i tut i ona l l y i nva l i d. S e e B ous l e y , 523 U . S . a t618–19, 118 S . C t . a t1609 ( “ [ P ] e t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tthe r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tne i the rhe , norhi s c ouns e l , nor the c our tc or r e c t l y unde r s t ood the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e w i th w hi c h he w a s c h a r g e d . W e r e th is c o n te n tio n p r o v e d , p e titio n e r ’s p le a w o u ld b e , c o n tr a r y to the vi ew expres se d b y the C ou rtof A pp ea l s, const i tut i on al l y i nv al i d. ”) . B ou sl ey di d nothol d tha tthe m i s i nf or m a t i on a boutthe e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e m a ke s the o f f e n s e n o n e x is te n t, n o rd id th e c a s e s a y a n y th in g a b o u t w h e th e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) m ay serv e as a su b st an t i v e o ffen se fo r a § 8 4 6 co n sp i racy. T h u s, c o n tr a r y to W o f

f o r d ’s c o n te n tio n h e r e , B o u s le y is n o t a r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic a b le S u p rem e C o u rtd eci si o n est ab l i sh i n g th ath i s co n v i ct i o n fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w a s an o n e x is te n t o f f e n s e . Be c a u s e W o f

f o r d h a s p o i n t e d t o n o o th e rr e tr o a c t i v e l y ap p l i c a b l e Su p r e me C our tde c i s i ons tha tw oul d m e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of the § 2255 s a vi ngs c l a us e , he w as no tperm i tt ed chal l enge hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence w i tho utfi l i ng an appl i c a t i on f

orpe r m i s s i on t o f

i l e a s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. S e e W of f or d, 177 F . 3d a t1245. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe r e f or e di d note r ri n di s m i s s i ng hi s § 2241 p e titio n . AF F I R ME D.