FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 14386 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 2 2 7 - C V - 3 - L A C - E MT C H A R L E S J . S P I G N E R , 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, J O S E B A R R O N , J R ., 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 rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 16, 2007)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n A pri l 18 , 19 97 , the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i stri ct o f F lo r id as e n te n c e d P e titio n e rto ap r is o n te rm o f 3 6 0 m o n th s o n ap le ao f g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s c r a c k c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te ( th e “N D F l C a s e ” ) . T he t erm w as t o run concurrent l y w i th a 24 0 m on ths pri son sent ence the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da had i m po se d o n P et i t i on er fo r p o ss es sin g cr ac k co ca in e w ith in ten t t o d istrib u te. W e a ff irm ed P etit io n er ’s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e i n the N D F l C a s e on M a r c h 30, 1998, a nd on M a r c h 8, 1999, P e t i t i one rm ove d the di s tr i c tc our tt o va c a t e hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e i n th a t c a s e p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d h is m o tio n . P e titio n e r ’s s u b s e q u e n t a tte m p ts to o b ta in § 2 2 5 5 r e lie f w e r e r e je c te d , p r in c ip a lly o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e y c o n s titu te d s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n s . I n J ul y 2006, P e t i t i one ronc e a ga i n c ha l l e nge d hi s N D F l c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , thi s t i m e w i th ape t i t i on f orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2241. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d hi s pe t i t i on a s ba rr e d unde rthe s a vi ngs c l a us e of § 2255. H e now appe a l s tha trul i ng, c ont e ndi ng tha t§ 2255’ s s a vi ngs c l a us e pe rm i t s hi m t o f

i l e hi s § 2241 pe t i t i on be c a us e § 2255 i s i na de qua t e orPe tition alsoc ontend s –

fo r t hefirs t timein t

hisa pp e al – t hat th edis tric t judg esh ould 1 have recuse d. We decline to consider the re cusal issue be causeit was not presented to the district court in the first instance . 3 i neff ec t i ve t o t es tthe l egal i ty of hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . 1 T y pi c a l l y , c ol l a t e r a l a tt a c ks on the va l i di ty of af e de r a l c onvi c t i on or s e nt e nc e m us tbe br oughtunde r§ 2255. S a w y e rv. H ol de r , 326 F . 3d 1363, 1365 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). S ect i o n 2 2 5 5 co n t ai n s a “ sav i n g s cl au se, ” w h i ch p erm i t s a pri soner t o m ou nta c ol l at er al att ac k aft erhavi ng been deni ed § 2 25 5 rel i ef i f r el i ef u n d e rth a t s e c tio n is “in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e .” T h e s a v in g s c lau s e p r o v id e s th a t [ a ] n appl i c a t i on f

orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus i n be ha l f of apr i s one rw ho i s a uthor i z e d t o appl y f

orr e l i e f by m ot i on pur s ua ntt o thi s s e c t i on, s h a ll n o t b e e n te r ta in e d if it ap p e a r s th a t th e ap p lic a n t h a s f a ile d to 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 that s uc h c our tha 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 b y m o tio n is in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . 28 U . S . C . § 2255. A c c or di ngl y , ac our tm a y e nt e r t a i n a§ 2241 pe t i t i on a tt a c ki ng cust od y r es ul t i ng fr om a f eder al l y i m po se d sent ence i f the pet i t i on eres t abl i shes thatthe re m edy provi ded for un der § 22 55 i s i nadequ at e or i neff ec t i ve. T he bu rden of c om i ng f

orw a r d w i th e vi de nc e a f f i rm a t i ve l y s how i ng the i na de qua c y or i n effecti v en ess o f th e § 2 2 5 5 rem ed y rest s w i th th e m o v an t . M cG h ee v . H an b erry, 6 0 4 F .2 d 9 , 1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) . W h en a p ri so n er h as p rev i o u sl y fi l ed a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n t o v acat e, h e m u st4

appl y f ora nd r e c e i ve pe rm i s s i on f r om the c our tof

appe a l s be f

or e f i l i ng a s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. 28 U . S . C . §§ 2244( b) ( 3) , 2255. S uc h r e s tr i c t i ons on s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s , s ta n d in g a lo n e , d o n o t r e n d e rth a t s e c tio n “in a d e q u a te ori ne f f e c t i ve ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the s a vi ngs c l a us e . W of f or d v. S c ott , 177 F . 3d 1236, 1245 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . C ons e que nt l y , ape t i t i one rw ho ha s f i l e d a previ ou s § 22 55 m ot i on , and b ee n d eni ed, m ayno tci rc um ventthe succ es si vem o tio n ru le s im p ly b y f ilin g ap e titio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . I d . T h e s a v in g s c la u s e o n ly ap p lie s w h e n ( 1 ) th e p e titio n e r ’s c la im is b a s e d o n ar e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic ab le S upr e m e C our tde c i s i on; ( 2) the hol di ng of tha tde c i s i on e s t abl i s he d tha tthe p e titio n e rw a s c o n v ic te d o f a“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 f or e c l os e d s uc h ac l a i m a tthe t i m e i tothe rw i s e s houl d ha ve be e n r a i s e d a tthe p e titio 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 . F o rap r is o n e rto a va i l hi m s e l f

of the § 2241 r e m e dy unde rW of f or d, a l l thr e e c r i t e r i am us tbe s a t i s f i e d. A s w e ha ve m a de c l e a r , a l l thr e e c r i t e r i aw i l l be m e tonl y i n the n a rr o w e s t o f

c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d . a t 1 2 4 4 . T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no e rr ori n di s m i s s i ng the i ns t a nt§ 2241 p etit io n . P etit io n eris p re clu d ed fr o m se ek in g re li ef u n d er§ 2 2 4 1 b ec au se § 2 2 5 5 ’s s a vi ngs c l a us e doe s notappl y . F i r s t , i tappe a r s tha the ha s f i l e d the pr e s e nt§ 2241 pe t i t i on i n a n e f

f or tt o c i r c um ve ntthe rul e s l i m i t i ng the s c ope of s uc c e s s i ve § 22555

m o t i o n s. S eco n d , h e can n o tm eetth e i n i t i al p ro n g o f th e t esti n W o ffo rd b ecau se h e h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h is c la im s a r e b a s e d o n ar e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic ab le S u p re m e C o u rt d ec isio n . G iv en th is fa ct, w e n ee d n o t ad d re ss W o ff o rd ’s rem ai n i n g p ro n g s. AF F I RME D.