# United States Court of Appeals

f or 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* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the co urt has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4.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: 04/07/2021No. 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 t o 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 th e 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 Ho bbs 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: 04/07/2021No. 19

- 31061

3 Thus, Stovall has faile d to carry his burden to demonstrate the inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy. See Wilson v. Roy , 643 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2011).

A ccordingly, the district court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition is
AFFIRMED

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