United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-31061

Summary Calendar

Brenson Stovall, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Calvin Johnson, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Pollock, 

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:19-CV-1291

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Brenson Stovall, federal prisoner # 34009-077, was convicted of four 

counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), (b); three 

counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 7, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-31061 Document: 00515811674 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
No. 19-31061

2

violence, in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In the underlying action, Stovall

filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he claimed that he was entitled to 

relief from his § 924(c) convictions based on Johnson v. United States, 576 

U.S. 591 (2015), Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and United States 

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), on the theory that those decisions established 

that the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague. He 

now appeals the district court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition. Our review 

is de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Generally, challenges to a sentence’s execution are made under 

§ 2241, and challenges seeking to vacate a conviction or sentence are made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 

2000). However, pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, a petitioner may 

proceed under § 2241 if § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the 

legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); see Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 

830 (5th Cir. 2001). A prisoner satisfies the savings clause by raising a claim 

“(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which 

establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent 

offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim 

should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 

motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Stovall cannot meet that standard. He argues that his Hobbs Act 

convictions are not COVs under either the definition of § 924(c)(3)(A) (the 

elements clause) or the definition of § 924(c)(3)(B) (the residual clause) 

because a Hobbs Act conviction can involve the non-violent offense of 

extortion. But those arguments are misplaced because Stovall’s Hobbs Act 

robbery convictions, which are the predicates for his § 924(c) convictions, 

are categorically COVs under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). See

United States v. Bowens, 907 F.3d 347, 353–54 & nn. 10–11 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Case: 19-31061 Document: 00515811674 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
No. 19-31061

3

Thus, Stovall has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate the inadequacy of 

the § 2255 remedy. See Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-31061 Document: 00515811674 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2021